SC dismissed the Union’s appeal against the compulsory retirement of Chhattisgarh IPS officer Gurjinder Pal Singh.

Last Updated on December 10, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC

Background

Gurjinder Pal Singh, a member of the Indian Police Services, was originally assigned to the Madhya Pradesh cadre before being transferred to the state of Chhattisgarh. In 2012, a superintendent of police died by suicide and Singh was his supervising officer.

However, no charges of inducing suicide were brought against him. An investigation was conducted and an FIR was registered under Section 13 para. 1 letter b) and § 13 par. 2 of the Act on Prevention of Corruption. On 1 July 2021, the police raided Singh’s residence and found reconstructed documents indicating revenge and hatred against the state government.

An FIR has been registered against Singh for committing an offense under Sections 124A and 153A of the IPC. On 9 March 2023, the Government of Chhattisgarh informed the Union that Singh was not fit to be retained in service. He was compulsorily dismissed from service under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. Singh challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor and ordered reinstatement with all consequences. benefits. The Union challenged this order in the High Court, but this plea was dismissed.

The Supreme Court today dismissed the Union of India’s plea to set aside the compulsory retirement order against Chhattisgarh IPS officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who was facing charges of corruption, extortion and sedition.

Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order in the Union’s challenge against the Delhi High Court’s order, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to set aside Singh’s compulsory retirement.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union, said that the central government has the power to “weed out the dead wood” and the compulsory retirement order is neither stigmatized nor should it be considered a punishment. In support of his contentions, the SG referred inter alia to the decision in Union of India v. M.E. Reddy and State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain.

As on the latest date, although the SG had said that the state of Chhattisgarh would challenge the orders quashing the criminal proceedings against Singh, the court today informed that the state is not challenging the quashing order(s). “Appellant (Singh) seems to be more powerful…” commented the SG, but Justice Roy was quick to warn against making such remarks.

Justice Bhatti argued that if the Court does not allow judicial review in cases where an officer is seen off for any other reason or motive, then a person who is seen off will not have a remedy. He argued that if an officer has been corrupt, not efficient, or has been a deadwood for 25 years, they should not be in the chair. However, if the officer has only been compulsorily retired for 2-3 years, they have a right to say that the government cannot trust an officer for the discharge of its duties. If someone is seen off for any other collateral reason, they have no remedy.

The matter has been previously addressed in previous proceedings.

On the latest date, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for Singh) submitted that it was a case of “framing” for the petitioner. He emphasized the following remark made by the Central Administrative Court in its resolution (elimination of compulsory retirement):

in the case of the complainant (Gurjinder Pal Singh) we find that the Investigating Officer has illegally planted 2 kg of gold and inferior material to frame him in a criminal case… In the light of the above confessions and the sworn statement of Mr. Mani Bhushan which led to the closure of the proceedings against the complainant, we find the essence in the case of the complainant that the two FIRs mentioned above were registered in order to framed the claim of the complainant that it was done on the orders of the higher authorities of the state government as he did not succumb to the line of pressure…It is clear from the fact that the said FIR was filed in connection with an incident that took place six years ago, corroborates the claim of the complainant that it was registered with malice and ulterior motive to incriminate him.’

Patwalia further argued that Singh’s mandatory demand was on the recommendation of the state government and the state government had given a statement before the contempt court that it was willing to comply with the order. He pointed out that the current petition was filed by the Union which initially returned the motion (for forced retirement) saying that Singh’s records were pending.

Adding that Singh was persecuted and his case was never tried on merit, Patwalia said, “Every single material on the basis of which the central government acted today is quashed. My retirement is certainly wrong. I was the DGP. If I had worked honestly, that’s not how it works. The Supreme Court said it’s just harassment.”

On the other hand, SG Mehta said that the criminal proceedings (arising out of 3 cases) against Singh were stopped only on November 14 and the state of Chhattisgarh would like to challenge the order(s). He further argued that even an acquittal in the criminal case could not affect the mandatory retirement and asked for time to record an additional affidavit.

After hearing the Secretary General, Justice Bhatti observed that in compulsory retirement, though the employee gets monetary benefits, there is a burden attached to it which he has to bear when he joins the company.

“Compulsory retirement is again a sort of burden placed on the shoulder of an employee who is…when he leaves campus and into society, anyone and everyone will say he is compulsorily retired,” the judge said in response to a statement on behalf of the Union, that mandatory retirement is not punitive or stigmatizing because the person who is on mandatory retirement “gets everything”.

The judge further emphasized that a case of forced retirement needs to be looked at from more than one angle i.e. utility, suspicion, ability to serve the institution and reasons (immediate past conduct etc.).

Case law: UOI Versus Gurjinder Pal Singh AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024