Team News Riveting
New Delhi, December 10
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed Union of India’s challenge to the setting aside of an order of compulsory retirement against Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order in Union’s challenge to a Delhi High Court order, whereby the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside Singh’s compulsory retirement was upheld.
The order said: “”In the present case, the learned CAT set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner…and the High Court under the impugned judgment has upheld the order of the Tribunal. The reasoning given by the CAT and the High Court was that it was a case of victimization of the officer. Therefore, the reasoning given in the impugned judgment would indicate that it’s not a case of weeding out dead wood. Having considered the special circumstances in the present matter, while recognizing the power of the Union government to invoke the power of compulsory retirement in a deserving case, we are of the view that disturbance may not be caused to the impugned orders passed in favor of the respondent. SLP is dismissed.”
On the last date, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia (for Singh) submitted that the petitioner’s is a case of “frame-up”. He laid emphasis on the following observation made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its order (setting aside the compulsory retirement):
“…we find substance in the case of applicant (Gurjinder Pal Singh) that 2 kg gold and seditious material had been planted by the investigating officer illegally in order to frame him in a criminal case…In light of the above admissions and statements of Mr. Mani Bhushan on oath, resulting in closure of the proceedings against the applicant, we find substance in the case of the applicant that two FIRs, referred to above, were registered to frame him. We also find substance in the allegation of the applicant that this was done at the behest of higher authorities of the State Government, as he did not toe the line of pressure…It is clear from the fact that the said FIR was filed in respect of an incident, which took place six years ago, gives credence to the applicant’s contention that it got registered maliciously and with an ulterior motive in order to frame him.”
Patwalia further contended that Singh’s compulsory requirement was on the recommendation of the state government and the state government has given a statement before the contempt court that it is willing to comply with the order. He pointed out that the present petition was filed by the Union, which initially returned the proposal (for compulsory retirement) saying that Singh’s record was outstanding.
Adding that Singh was victimized and his case never examined on merits, Patwalia said, “Every single material which Central government acted on today stands quashed. My retirement is certainly wrong. I was a DGP. If I worked honestly, this is not the way I am to be treated. High Court said it is a case of sheer harassment”.
Justice Bhatti remarked that on compulsory retirement, though an employee gets monetary benefits, there is a burden attached that he has to carry when he steps out into society.
“Compulsory retirement is again a sort of burden carrying on the shoulder of the employee who is…when he leaves the campus and into the society, anyone and everyone will say he is compulsory retired”, the judge said, in response to a submission on behalf of the Union that compulsory retirement is not penal or stigmatic, as a person who is compulsory retired “gets everything”.
The judge added emphasized that the compulsory retirement case has to be looked at from more than angle, that is – utility, suspicion, ability to serve the institution and reasons (conduct in immediate past, etc.).
