New Delhi: Supreme court Answer sought from Jharkhand on Wednesday Union Public Service Commission A contempt petition has been accused of flouting the Supreme Court’s decision fixing a two-year term on the state Director General of police And this UPSC Failed to form panel for selection of new DGP.
A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy initially wondered why the petitioner Rajesh Kumar opted to file the contempt petition instead of the writ petition, but senior advocate Siddharth Luthra convinced the bench that There was a clear violation of SC orders. To provide a minimum tenure of two years for the DGP.
public interest litigation, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, who is also a standing counsel for the Chhattisgarh government in the SC, said that the Hemant Soren-led Jharkhand government, which took charge on December 29, 2019, removed the incumbent DGP KN Choubey. However, he was appointed on 31 May. 2019 and the term will be till May 30, 2021, as per the SC’s decision in the Parkash Singh case.
The petitioner submitted that the Jharkhand government had appointed MV Rao as ad-hoc DGP on March 16, 2020, which was unacceptable under the procedure for DGP appointments laid down by the SC in the Prakash Singh judgment of 2006. Kumar further alleged that by appointing Neeraj Sinha as DGP on February 11 this year, Rao’s successor, the state has increased the contempt.
As per the Supreme Court decision, a state has to request the UPSC to give a panel of names of senior officers to the state long before the retirement of a DGP. The state had on July 21 last year requested the UPSC to form a panel of officers from whom the DGP can be chosen by the government. UPSC declined, saying the state should follow the law laid down by the court. It is not clear from the petition what UPSC meant – whether Jharkhand should have given Choubey two years or the state’s request was not in line with the Supreme Court’s decision.
A repeat of the request by the Jharkhand government was met with a similar response from the UPSC. When Jharkhand wrote another letter last year to the UPSC demanding a panel of senior police officers for the post of DGP, the UPSC said it could not accept the state’s request without the SC’s direction.
In Prakash Singh’s judgment, the SC had said, “The DGP of the state will be selected by him”. state government Out of the three senior most officers of the department who have been empaneled by the Union Public Service Commission for promotion to that post on the basis of their length of service, very good record and extent of experience in leading a police force. And, once selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of their date of retirement.”
“However, the DGP may be relieved of his responsibilities by acting in consultation with the State Government” state security commission As a result of any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or after his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offense or in a corruption case, or if he is otherwise incapable of discharging his duties are,” it said.
A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy initially wondered why the petitioner Rajesh Kumar opted to file the contempt petition instead of the writ petition, but senior advocate Siddharth Luthra convinced the bench that There was a clear violation of SC orders. To provide a minimum tenure of two years for the DGP.
public interest litigation, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, who is also a standing counsel for the Chhattisgarh government in the SC, said that the Hemant Soren-led Jharkhand government, which took charge on December 29, 2019, removed the incumbent DGP KN Choubey. However, he was appointed on 31 May. 2019 and the term will be till May 30, 2021, as per the SC’s decision in the Parkash Singh case.
The petitioner submitted that the Jharkhand government had appointed MV Rao as ad-hoc DGP on March 16, 2020, which was unacceptable under the procedure for DGP appointments laid down by the SC in the Prakash Singh judgment of 2006. Kumar further alleged that by appointing Neeraj Sinha as DGP on February 11 this year, Rao’s successor, the state has increased the contempt.
As per the Supreme Court decision, a state has to request the UPSC to give a panel of names of senior officers to the state long before the retirement of a DGP. The state had on July 21 last year requested the UPSC to form a panel of officers from whom the DGP can be chosen by the government. UPSC declined, saying the state should follow the law laid down by the court. It is not clear from the petition what UPSC meant – whether Jharkhand should have given Choubey two years or the state’s request was not in line with the Supreme Court’s decision.
A repeat of the request by the Jharkhand government was met with a similar response from the UPSC. When Jharkhand wrote another letter last year to the UPSC demanding a panel of senior police officers for the post of DGP, the UPSC said it could not accept the state’s request without the SC’s direction.
In Prakash Singh’s judgment, the SC had said, “The DGP of the state will be selected by him”. state government Out of the three senior most officers of the department who have been empaneled by the Union Public Service Commission for promotion to that post on the basis of their length of service, very good record and extent of experience in leading a police force. And, once selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of their date of retirement.”
“However, the DGP may be relieved of his responsibilities by acting in consultation with the State Government” state security commission As a result of any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or after his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offense or in a corruption case, or if he is otherwise incapable of discharging his duties are,” it said.
.