Supreme Court Hears Challenge Against Dinkar Gupta's Appointment As Punjab DGP

While hearing two special leave petitions against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of upholding the appointment of Dinkar Gupta as the Punjab DGP, the Supreme Court today observed that core policing areas might vary from state to state. "Each state has its own policing areas. Punjab is a border state. The policing areas in Madhya Pradesh might not be the same as that of Punjab. This varies from state to state," Justice Sanjiv Khanna orally remarked. The matter was listed for hearing before the bench of Justices LN Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.The petitions were filed by IPS Officers Mohammad Mustafa and Siddarth Chattopadhyay who were not considered for appointment as the top police officer of Punjab. Background IPS Officers Mohammad Mustafa and Siddharth Chattopadhyay (1985 and 1986 batch belonging to Punjab Cadre respectively) had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") challenging order dated February 7, 2019 wherein the Government of Punjab appointed Dinkar Gupta, an IPS officer of 1987 batch of Punjab cadre, as Director General of Police, Head of Police Force based on the recommendations of UPSC Empanelment Committee. Two member bench of CAT Chairman L Narsimha Reddy and M Jamshed upon IPS Officer's application quashed Gupta's appointment as DGP and observed that the procedure adopted by UPSC and the Empanelment Committee for preparation of the panel for the purpose of selection and appointment of DGP was violative of the procedure stipulated by the Supreme Court "Prakash Singh & others v. Union of India & others" (2006) 8 SCC 1. Aggrieved by CAT's order UPSC, State of Punjab and Dinkar Gupta had approached Punjab and Haryana High Court. The division bench of Justices Sawant Singh and Sant Prakash on November 6, 2020 while holding that the CAT "exceeded its power of judicial review by transgressing into the domain of law regarding judicial review of the decisions/ recommendations of the Selection Committee," set aside CAT's order that had quashed Dinkar's Appointment. "The Tribunal erred in holding that the Draft Guidelines-2009 and the procedure adopted by the UPSC/Empanelment Committee for the selection of the DGP (Head of Police Force) for the state of Punjab in January-February 2019 was in contravention of Prakash Singh's judgment (supra). The procedure adopted by UPSC/Empanelment Committee and the Minutes of meeting of the Empanelment Committee dated 04.02.2019 and consequential order dated 07.02.2019 by state of Punjab are held to be valid and legal," the High Court had also observed. Submissions Of Counsels Flaw In Draft Guidelines 2009 Since They Leave Method Of Suitability On Committee: Venugopal Appearing for Siddharth Chattopadhyay (1986 batch officer), Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal argued that Chattopadhyay was considered unfit for empanelment since Suresh Arora, the then DGP being the ex officio member of the Empanelment Committee for selection of post of DGP had reason to be biased against him. Reliance was also placed on Top Court's judgement in Badri Nathv Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors , 2000 8 SCC 395. It was also his contention that the selection criteria that was employed by the UPSC Empanelment Committee was in contravention with the Prakash Singh Judgement since the Top Court had said to give weightage to a person in seniority and that even the criteria pertaining to experience was also not followed. "They chose 5 core policing areas out of 20 crore policing areas which resulted in exclusion of top 5 senior officers," Senior Counsel submitted. Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal also argued that the officers were unaware of the process of selection and only got to know about the same from a newspaper. "We were unaware as to when the process started. It came out in some newspaper that the process was on and that the then DGP was sitting on it. It was never disclosed to the panel & the DGP had recused 2 times in my case. CAT also rejected the bias saying that we could not show that any actions have been taken by us against that DGP," Senior Counsel added to substantiate his contention. Emphasizing on the composition of members of the Empanelment Committee, Senior Counsel submitted that then DGP Suresh Arora had maximum knowledge on determining the 5 core areas and that the entire fulcrum laid on Policing Areas. "There is a big flaw in the draft guidelines because if it leaves the method of suitability to the committee, then each time they would have the option to choose the criteria that they wish to adopt," Senior Counsel added. Whole Selection Process Was Completely Tailor Made: Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia Appearing for Mohammad Mustafa (now retired), Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia while emphasising on the word "Farce" used by Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") to describe the process based on which Gupta was...

Supreme Court Hears Challenge Against Dinkar Gupta's Appointment As Punjab DGP

Shruti Kakkar

Tags