Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Plea Against Setting Aside Of Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh's Compulsory Retirement

The Supreme Court today dismissed Union of India's challenge to the setting aside of an order of compulsory retirement against Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who faced allegations of corruption, extortion and sedition.

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 was dictated thus,

"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."

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union, submitted that the Central government has power to "weed out dead wood" and the order of compulsory retirement is neither stigmatic nor it should be taken as a punishment. In support of his submissions, the SG referred inter-alia to the decisions in Union of India v. M.E. Reddy and State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain.

On the last date, though the SG stated that State of Chhattisgarh would challenge the orders whereby criminal proceedings against Singh were quashed, he informed the Court today that the state is not challenging the quashing order(s). "It seems the petitioner (Singh) is more powerful...", the SG commented, but Justice Roy was quick to caution that such remarks not be made.

Justice Bhatti, on his part, posed to the SG that if the Court accepts that there can't be any judicial review in such cases, then a person who is "seen off for any other reason or motive" will not have a remedy.

"Even now, if you can place before us that in a career of 25 years he has been corrupt, not efficient, has been a dead wood only the system...not performing the duties, then you are fair to sit in your chair and take a decision that I don't want your presence in the chair...as against a slab of 25 years, you look at the confidential reports for only 2-3 years...only in one of the years, it has been in the box. By referring to that, the officer has been compulsorily retired. In this area, though we agree with you that ultimately you come to know that the government cannot trust an officer for discharge of its duties, you have a right to [say] I am not dismissing you, it's a case of compulsory retirement, please go. But, take a case, for any other collateral reason, someone is seen off in this fashion, what remedy he has?"

Earlier proceedings in the matter

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".

On the other hand, SG Mehta submitted that criminal proceedings (arising out of 3 cases) against Singh were quashed only on November 14 and the State of Chhattisgarh would like to challenge the order(s). He further argued that even acquittal in a criminal case can't impact compulsory retirement and requested time to place on record an additional affidavit.

After hearing the SG, 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 further 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.).

Background

Singh, a member of the Indian Police Services, was allotted to the Madhya Pradesh Cadre. After bifurcation, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh cadre.

In 2012, a Superintendent of Police died by suicide and in his suicide letter, he mentioned that he was harassed by his boss and a judge of the High Court. Singh was his Supervisory Officer but after a CBI investigation, no case for abetment of suicide was made against him.

Subsequently, upon receiving information alleging accumulation of disproportionate assets by Singh, an enquiry was conducted. An FIR was registered under Section 13(1)(b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and during investigation, Sections 201, 467 and 471 IPC were added.

On July 1, 2021, the police raided Singh's residence and allegedly found pieces of paper in a drain behind the house, which were later reconstructed. The contents of the reconstructed documents allegedly indicated vengeance and hatred against the state government. As a result, an FIR was registered against Singh for committing offence under Sections 124A & 153A of IPC.

On 09.03.2023, Chhattisgarh government informed the Union that Singh was not fit to be retained in service. Vide an order dated 20.07.2023, he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.

He challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in his favor and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Union challenged this order before the High Court, but the plea was rejected.

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus GURJINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024 

Click Here To Read/Download Order