Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Against Appointment Of Rakesh Asthana As Delhi Police Commissioner

The Delhi High Court today reserved judgment on a plea filed by one Sadre Alam challenging appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Delhi Police. The Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh will also pronounce order on the intervention application filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation, challenging Asthana's appointment. CPIL has alleged that Alam's plea is a "copy-paste" of the petition filed by CPIL before the Supreme Court. The Bench heard Advocate BS Bagga for the Petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan for CPIL, SG Tushar Mehta for the Centre and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Rakesh Asthana.Earlier, CPIL had approached the Supreme Court with the matter, upon which the Top Court on August 25 relegated the petitioner to the Delhi High Court, and requested the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously within 2 weeks. Petitioner/ Intervenor Submissions The counsels appearing for the Petitioner and the intervenor have opposed Asthana's appointment on the following grounds: Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months; No UPSC panel was formed for the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; The criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years had been ignored; and He has surpassed the super-time scale for inter-cadre deputation. Supertime Scale Supertime scale is a grade pay to DIG on completion of 14 years and to IG after 18 years. As per the intervenor, CPIL, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Asthana is at pay band 17 whereas a person is eligible for inter-cadre deputation only after completion of 9 years of service in his or her cadre and before reaching pay of Level 14 of the Pay Matrix in his or her home cadre. Thus, Bhushan argued, "Asthana has already reached supertime scale so there is no question of inter-cadre deputation here. As per the latest Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India, inter-cadre deputation can be done till Pay Scale 14. He is on scale 17, which is the highest." Appointment to be made from panel selected by UPSC Bhushan argued that as per the guidelines issued by the UPSC following the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, "The appointment has to be made from the three persons selected by UPSC for this purpose. So first, UPSC must prepare a list of officers who are empaneled on the basis of length of service, range of experience, etc. In this case, no role is played by UPSC. It is not even consulted. This is another violation." He added while the Centre claims that Prakash Singh judgment is not applicable only to DGPs appointed in States, however, the Supreme Court contemplated a situation where Police Chief may not be DGP but Commissioner. That's why it included Union Territories. "Merely because operative direction says "DGP", does not mean it's not applicable to Commissioner. The entire judgment talks about Police Chief in general." Residual Tenure Another ground pleaded by the intervenor is that Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months, which is a must under applicable statutory Rules. "His name was rejected as CBI Director because a person must have minimum residual tenure of 6 months. There are 3 violations. First, UPSC is not consulted. Second, he is appointed for 1 year when it has to be for 2 years. Third, he does not have residual tenure of 6 months which is a must for appointment as Police Chief." Appointment should be made from AGMUT Cadre Bhushan argued that non-appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner from the AGMUT cadre will have a deleterious effect. He submitted, "To justify this inter-cadre appointment, Centre says that there is no officer in AGMUT cadre who is competent enough to be appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner. In the whole country, Asthana is only officer they could find who is fit to be appointed to that post? I'd understand if UPSC said this. But where is the question of Centre deciding? This will have a demoralizing effect on AGMUT cadre; none of them is competent? Govt had to bring a person from Gujarat, that too 4 days before retirement?" Criteria of minimum tenure of two years ignored Lastly, Bhushan argued that appointment of DGP has to be purely on merits, for 2 years of service, regardless of superannuation. But Asthana is given 1 year extension. He added that appointment of officers who are on verge of retirement is impermissible It was submitted that as per Rules, no appointment can be made after retirement. There are however certain exceptions for relaxation for short duration like 3 months. But this is in case the incumbent officer is caring on some very important work. "It does not mean Govt can bring an altogether new person from different cadre. Such relaxation is not permitted, that too to the post of Police Chief," Bhushan said. He cited the...

Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Against Appointment Of Rakesh Asthana As Delhi Police Commissioner

Akshita Saxena

Tags