Delhi High Court: In a petition filed to challenge the order dated 30-04-2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) wherein the order dated 20-07-2023 passed by the President to compulsorily retire Gurjinder Pal Singh (respondent 1) under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’) had been set aside, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ. opined that the Union had not been able to show anything adverse in the service record of Gurjinder Pal Singh and upheld the impugned order dated 30-04-2024.
Background
Gurjinder Pal Singh had joined the Indian Police Services (IPS) in the Madhya Pradesh cadre in 1994 and was reallocated to the Chhattisgarh cadre. Vide letter dated 06-12-2021, the State Government of Chhattisgarh (respondent 2) informed the petitioner that the record of 33 IPS officers was reviewed as per Rule 16(3) of the Rules and that the Review Committee recommended their retirement as they were not found fit to continue.
Subsequently, the Union (petitioner) sought certain documents from the State Government of Chhattisgarh which were provided to them. Since a proposal of deemed resignation of Myinthungo Tungoe, IPS came up for resignation and Mukesh Gupta, IPS had already superannuated on 30-09-2022, a fresh proposal was sought from the State Government of Chhattisgarh.
Vide letter dated 09-03-2023, the State Government of Chhattisgarh informed the Union that Gurjinder Pal Singh was not fit to be retained in service. As a consequence, vide order dated 20-07-2023, Gurjinder Pal Singh was compulsorily retired from service.
Gurjinder Pal Singh challenged the order dated 20-07-2023 before CAT wherein he contended that on 12-03-2012, the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur committed suicide and, in his suicide note he mentioned the reason as harassment by an interfering boss and an arrogant judge of the High Court. Gurjinder Pal Singh was his Supervisory Officer but after an investigation by the CBI, no case for abetment of suicide was made against him.
Therefore, Gurjinder Pal Singh was appointed as Inspector General of Police on 27-02-2019 and was promoted to the rank of Additional Director General of Police on 19-06-2019. Thereafter, he was abruptly transferred to police headquarters with no assignment as Director of the State Police Academy.
Gurjinder Pal Singh contended that on 06-11-2020 i.e., after more than four years of the suicide incident, the Union constituted a five-member Inquiry Committee against which he preferred an appeal before the Jabalpur Bench of CAT.
The Annual Performance Appraisal Report (‘APAR’) of Gurjinder Pal Singh for the assessment period 2019-20 was downgraded from 7.90 to 6.00 with adverse remarks. He made a representation against this, which was never decided. Thus, Gurjinder Pal Singh preferred another appeal before the Jabalpur Branch of CAT.
Additionally, three First Information Reports (‘FIRs’) were also filed against Gurjinder Pal Singh. Besides this, complaints from three private individuals were lodged within 24 hours from 12-07-2021 and 13-07-2021 resulting in the constitution of three separate Inquiry Committees.
On 12-08-2021, a charge sheet was issued against Gurjinder Pal Singh in respect of which he was never given the complete set of documents, and even after two years, no Inquiry Officer was appointed. Thus, Gurjinder Pal Singh contended that the compulsory retirement order was a shortcut to avoid disciplinary proceedings and was liable to be quashed.
The contention of the Union before CAT was that Gurjinder Pal Singh was never exonerated in any proceedings in respect of the incident of suicide and that a Show Cause Notice by CBI had been issued for taking disciplinary action against him.
CAT set aside the order dated 20-07-2023 and directed the reinstatement of Gurjinder Pal Singh with all consequential benefits. The Union challenged this order by stating that the order dated 20-07-2023 was passed in public interest under Rule 16(3) of the Rules.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that an investigation was carried out against Gurjinder Pal Singh regarding the suicide of the Superintendent of Police and a closure report was filed by CBI on 11-09-2013.
The Court referred to CSHA University v. B.D. Goyal (2010) 15 SCC 776 wherein the Supreme Court held that there could not be a second inquiry on the same facts, and stated that reopening the case of Gurjinder Pal Singh without any reasoning or fresh ground especially when the closure report mentioned that no case was made out against him, was nothing but an attempt to harass Gurjinder Pal Singh.
Considering the APAR of Gurjinder Pal Singh for the year 2019-20, which showed his downgraded performance, the Court found that previously he was awarded grade 10, 9.5, and then 10 again. However, it was noted that for the period of 01-11-2019 to 31-03-2019, he was given grade 6.
Further, the Court noted that the names of the other three IPS officers against whom inquiries were initiated were dropped for one or the other reason, but Gurjinder Pal Singh had been roped in for offences that were not even substantiated.
The Court found it relevant to note that the proceedings in all three FIRs were stayed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and without waiting for the outcome, the Union had ordered the compulsory retirement of Gurjinder Pal Singh as a shortcut method without waiting for the conclusion of departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the Court said that CAT had rightly observed that the competent criminal court could decide the criminal case independently on its own merit and had refrained from making any observations on the merits of the FIRs.
The Court opined that it was just and proper that CAT had taken serious note of the fact that despite a delay of three years, not even an Enquiry Officer was appointed in the department proceedings. It was stated that the Union was unable to show anything adverse in the service record of Gurjinder Pal Singh.
The Court noted that the filing of various FIRs was premised upon alleged recovery made from Mani Bhushan, an SBI Officer and that after considering his statement, the allegation against Gurjinder Pal Singh did not appear to be strong enough to direct his compulsory retirement.
Thus, the Court opined that the impugned order dated 30-04-2024 suffered from no infirmity and dismissed the present petition.
[Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5881, Decided on 23-08-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — ASC Chetan Sharma, CGSC Harish V. Shankar, Advocate Amit Gupta, Advocate Vinay Yadav, Advocate Shubham Sharma, Advocate Srish Kumar, Advocate Vikramaditya Singh
For Respondent — Party-in-person, Advocate Ankur Chhibber, Advocate Mrinal Bharti, Advocate Y. Shukla, Advocate Nikunj, AAG Avdhesh Kumar Singh, SC Prashant Singh
