PIL For Permanent DGP Makes Personal Allegations Against Sanjay Pandey : Bombay High Adds Him As Necessary Party

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed they had come across certain portions of the PIL where direct allegations were made against Pandey, making him a necessary party/ respondent.

"In the course of preparing the judgement [certain] paragraphs of the petition came to our notice where we find that certain allegations have been levelled against Mr Sanjay Pandey. In view of such allegations we consider it appropriate to grant the oral prayer for impleadment of Mr Sanjay Pandey as a party respondent," the bench observed in their order.

The petitioner's counsel Abhinav Chandrachud offered to delete the paragraphs but the court said there was no harm in hearing what Pandey had to say.

Pandey, through his counsel, had sought to be impleaded as a party on Tuesday itself. However, the bench was disinclined to add him as a formal party and had asked him to demonstrate if he had the right to be heard, and to argue whatever he had to on Tuesday itself.

Senior Counsel Navroz Seervai for Pandey cited certain judgements on his right to be heard and also placed certain written submissions on record.

The matter pertains to a PIL filed by Advocate Dutta Mane to appoint a permanent Director General of Police from the three names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission's selection committee.

Mane argued that he was seeking enforcement of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case on police reforms. According to the judgement, the State ought to appoint its DGP from UPSC's recommendation. Moreover, IPS officer Sanjay Pandey who was appointed as acting DGP in April 2021, after the post fell vacant, could not be permitted to continue to hold office as there was no concept of acting DGP, Mane claimed.

The three names UPSC-recommended on November 1, 2021, were of IPS officers: Hemant Nagrale, Rajnish Seth and K Venkatesham.

The State opposed the PIL on the grounds that UPSC has erred in not recommending Pandey's name, who was the senior-most officer in the State, with thirty years of service and was due for retirement later this year.

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni submitted that the then Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte had written to the UPSC committee on November 8, stating that Pandey was left out due to an improper application of the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines(DOPT).

However, the bench observed that Kunte was part of the November 1 UPSC meeting, and signed on the proceedings. But, he failed to object at the time. "Once a selection committee member has signed the proceedings, it is not open to him at a subsequent stage to renege from the selection," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta orally observed, relying on the Supreme Court judgement of Chancellor vs Dr Bijay Ananda Kar.

Pandey, represented by Seervai, submitted that he was not recommended only because his Annual Confidential Report(ACR) score of '7,' was wrongly treated as 'good' and not 'very good.' According to the DOPT guidelines, ACR scores between 6-8 are to be treated as 'very good.'

Additionally, the State must consider its senior-most officer, with a 'very good' ACR for the post of DGP in the State. Therefore, his name should have been recommended.

"Being heard is a universal categorical principle and it is part of natural justice, which is part of the rule of law by which we are governed in this country. That it is unheard of that a decision is taken which vitally affects a party, and he is not made a respondent and not allowed to place his case on record before his fate is decided on merits," Seervai had argued.

Personal Allegations

Mane claimed in the petition that even when the previous Maharashtra government had sent a list of senior IPS officers to the UPSC in 2019, Sanjay Pandey's name did not figure in that list.

"It is believed that it was during the appointment of Mr. Subodh Kumar Jaiswal as the DGP, Maharashtra in 2019 during the previous Government in Maharashtra, the State had sent a list of officers to UPSC and Mr. Subodh Kumar Jaiswal's name was present in the list of three candidates in addition to other senior officers namely Mr. Bipin Bihari and Mr. Sanjay Barve," it claims, adding that this demonstrates that the officer who was not shortlisted in recommended panel of three suitable officers list of 2019 and recent list of 1st November 2021, could not have been appointed as acting DGP and can't be allowed to continue to hold that post perpetually.

The High Court has directed Pandey to file his reply to the PIL by Thursday, February 4, while permitting the State and UPSC to file written submissions. Accordingly, the matter will now be heard on February 9.