Delhi High Court Adjourns Plea Against Appointment Of Rakesh Asthana As DPC After Petitioner Fails To Explain Own Averment

The Delhi High Court has adjourned till September 27, hearing of the plea challenging appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, after counsel for the Petitioner failed to explain his own averment regarding "super-time scale" in service jurisprudence."This is how we are getting assistance in Delhi High Court," remarked Chief Justice DN Patel while adjourning the case.The Bench, also comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh, was hearing the petition filed one Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga.Centre for Public Interest Litigation, an intervenor in the matter, has claimed that Alam's plea is a "copy-paste" of the petition filed by CPIL before the Supreme Court.However, Bagga has denied the allegation.During the course of hearing today, Bagga was addressing the Bench over service rules applicable in the case. He claimed that though the Central Government and Rakesh Asthana have filed their counter-affidavits in the matter, they have not shown how Asthana is eligible for extension of tenure despite superannuation.Bagga cited inter cadre deputation Rules that provide for retirement of Government servants and stipulate the conditions for extension after retirement. He claimed that Asthana does not satisfy any of the conditions mentioned in the Fundamental Rules and the counter-affidavits are silent on this aspect.At this juncture, the Chief Justice asked Bagga, "What do you mean by super-time scale?""It is for 16 years," Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL responded."He has copied, let him answer. You enjoy! We will hear you at length," the Chief Justice told Bhushan.Observing that the Petitioner's counsel is not in a position to explain an averment, which he claims to be his own, the Chief Justice observed,"You have no answer! The Judges must be enlightened by the lawyer but you have simply copied without understanding. You should bring your independent submissions. If you are copying, you should copy 5%. You can't copy 90%. This time we have tolerated..."The Court then adjourned the matter, granting time to Bagga to explain the term "Super-time scale" used in Service Jurisprudence.In its order, the Bench recorded thus:"Counsel for Petitioner started with arguments on inter-cadre transfer. He simply read over paragraphs without explaining anything. When he used the words "super-time scale" were used, we asked him explain to explain the term. However, the counsel is unable to explain what "super-time scale" means in service jurisprudence. The counsel is seeking some time to explain the term. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned till September 27."The plea challenges the order dated July 27 issued by the Central Government granting inter cadre deputation and extension of service to Asthana. It emphasized that Asthana was appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before he was due to retire on his superannuation on July 31.CPIL, which had initially moved the Supreme Court challenging Asthana's appointment, has approached the High Court by way of an intervention application, claiming that the instant petition is an "ambush petition" which was a "copy-paste" from CPIL's petition.CPIL is aggrieved by the fact that Asthana was appointed as the Commissioner just four days before his retirement, thereby extending his service beyond the date of his superannuation. It also claims that the appointment order is in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by Apex Court in the Prakash Singh case (2006) 8 SCC 1 as:Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months;No UPSC panel was formed for the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; andThe criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years had been ignored.Alam in his plea has stated that Asthana's appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before he was due to retire gives a complete go-by to the statutory rules. The plea states, "the requirement for exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules [for relaxing the Requirement of Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 1958] is not satisfied. The impugned orders dated 27.07.2021 are the reform, completely illegal and clearly smack of mala fide, and have presumably been issued only to promote the interests of the Respondent No.2 as well as of those in the Central government."In its reply, Centre has claimed that appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner was done in public interest owing to the reason the Delhi, being the national capital, has been witnessing law and order and policing issues having national security and cross border implications.It also stated that a compelling need was felt by the Central Government to appoint a person as a head of the police force of Delhi, who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force, having political as well as public order experience of working and supervising Central Investigating Agency(s) as well as para-military forces.Asthana also filed an affidavit claiming that Common Cause and ...

Delhi High Court Adjourns Plea Against Appointment Of Rakesh Asthana As DPC After Petitioner Fails To Explain Own Averment

Akshita Saxena

Tags