Mumbai, Feb 9 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the Maharashtra government if it had favoured IPS officer Sanjay Pandey for the post of director general of police (DGP).
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik further said that it was putting the state government “on guard” over the issue of Pandey having sought a review of his Annual Confidential Report, and the state referral board having increased his grades.
The bench made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Datta Mane, seeking directions to the state government to appoint a DGP in accordance with the 2006 Prakash Singh judgement of the Supreme Court on police reforms.
Mane’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud told the court that while Pandey had been made the acting DGP last year after the then state DGP Subodh Jaiswal was transferred to the CBI, the Prakash Singh judgement did not provide for an ad hoc or acting DGP post.
On Wednesday, Chandrachud showed records to the High Court to point out that Pandey had written to the state referral board seeking that his previous ACR grades be reviewed and an adverse remark made by the board against him be expunged.
According to the arguments made by the petitioner’s lawyer, the state and the Union governments during the day’s hearing, before the meeting of the UPSC selection committee in November 2021 to select names for the Maharashtra DGP post, Pandey had written to the state referral board and asked that his grade from 2012-13 be upgraded and an adverse remark be expunged.
The same was done on November 8, a week after the UPSC selection committee meeting held on November 1, 2021, and Pandey’s grade was increased from 5.6 to 8 and it came to be very good instead of good, Chandrachud argued.
The state’s counsel Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, however, told the court that the state referral board had upgraded Pandey’s grade for the year 2011-12 and not 2012-13.
In 2019, the referral board had refused to make such an upgradation, but after Pandey wrote back in 2021, it upgraded the score and expunged the remark that had allegedly advised him to be “less rash and more controlled” in his behaviour towards his colleagues, he said.
The court asked the state and the Centre if there existed a rule that permitted such requests for review after 10 years and allowed for upgradation of grades.
“After going through what Dr Chandrachud has shown today, do you think we’ll accept that the state government was not favouring the Respondent?” the bench asked Kumbhakoni.
“The state government upgraded his rating. The change was signed by the then chief secretary (Sitaram Kunte), who was a member of the UPSC selection committee that met on November 1. Unless the state shows that it is permitted to make such changes in grades after 8 or 10 years, we are not going to accept this (the new grade),” the High Court noted.
“There has to be some limit. Do you think the state government was not favouring respondent number five (Pandey)?” the bench asked.
The court noted that the records showed that Pandey had asked in 2012 for the state referral board to reconsider his score of 5.6. The board told him in 2019 that it had decided not to upgrade and his score was to remain 5.6.
Pandey again wrote to the referral board in 2021, and this time, his grade was promptly increased to 8 without ascribing any reasons or grounds, it said.
Th bench, however, stated that as per existing police service rules, the referral board’s decision was to be considered as final and there was no ground for reconsideration.
“We are putting the state on guard,” the High Court said.
The Union government’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh informed the court that there was no question of the referral board considering Pandey’s request again since his first representation was rejected in 2019.
“This is totally an illegal procedure adopted by the state and this is something that ought not to have been done by the state, particularly when the CS himself was part of the selection committee of the UPSC that rejected Pandey’s candidature,” Singh said.
“Look at it from any angle, but this conduct was uncalled for. There was no provision for reconsideration. Therefore, Pandey’s representation itself becomes illegal. The dates of these representations and changes are very relevant. The state failed to follow the SC guidelines laid down in the Prakash Singh judgement,” the ASG said.
The state government had earlier told the court that the appointment to the DGP post had been delayed because while it had written to the UPSC to reconsider Pandey’s candidature for the post, the UPSC was yet to take a decision.
The High Court will continue the hearing on the plea on Thursday. PTI AYA ARU ARU
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.