Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment On Maintainability Of Param Bir Singh's Challenge To Maharashtra Govt Enquiries

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the maintainability of ex-Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh's plea challenging two enquiries initiated against him by the Maharashtra government.

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar reserved its order on Singh's plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking Article 14 (equality before law), Article 19 (1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to live with dignity) of the petitioner.

The State contended the Central Administrative Tribunal was the appropriate forum for Singh's grievances as these were administrative enquiries related to his conduct when he was the commissioner.

In contrast, Singh claimed that these were not administrative enquiries but criminal enquiries as there was a reference to section 32 of the CrPC. Therefore, his only remedy was before the High Court.

State's counsel, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata submitted that Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani's arguments on maintainability contradicted Singh's own petition.

"Whatever my learned friend has argued is not his client's case. It is surprising that my learned friend even advanced such an argument. His case in the petition on oath is that this is an administrative enquiry under the service rules & that the government had no business conferring it under section 32 of CrPC. Mr Jethmalani has turned that upside down to say that this is a criminal enquiry. The petitioner admits and accepts that this is an administrative enquiry & therefore you cannot now invoke section 32 of CrPC."

Meanwhile, Jethmalani alleged that the enquiries dated April 1 2020, and April 20, 2021, were issued by the State Home Ministry a month after he accused then Home Minister Anil Deshmukh of corruption. Therefore they are malafide, meant to target and harass him.

Writing letters would not "immunise" Singh from an enquiry. Vendetta and malafide are very lofty words to call the enquiry vitiated, Khambata said in response.

Maintainability

To buttress his objections on maintainability, Khambata submitted that section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the jurisdiction of all the courts except the Supreme Court in service matters.

Khambata relied on L Chandra Kumar's judgment, to submit, "The Supreme Court has categorically held that it will not be open for the litigants to approach the High Court by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."

Additionally, he argued that Singh's primary grievance was with DGP Sanjay Pandey heading the enquiries. The issue was addressed as the officer had recused himself on April 30 2021, & on May 3 2021 the enquiry was assigned to 2 different officers, he said, adding, one went to the Director-General of the Anti Corruption Bureau & the other to Additional Chief Secretary Planning.

"So the effective cause for the petition has come to an end."

Pandey recused himself from the enquiries after Singh accused him of asking the latter to withdraw his letter against Deshmukh and attached specific phone recordings.

At the beginning of the hearing, Singh's lawyers tried submitting amended prayers in the petition. However, the court refused to accept it as it was being furnished at the last moment.

On Wednesday, Jethmalani vehemently defended Singh's petition without restricting himself to the maintainability of the plea. He said that enquiry was initiated by the State Home Department headed by none other than Anil Deshmukh, at the time.

Jethmalani said Param Bir had written a letter on April 19, 2021, to the CBI, regarding the attempt to thwart the enquiry directed by the High Court into corruption allegations against Anil Deshmukh.

He further said that the first inquiry into officer Anup Dange's complaint was a preliminary enquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. "If this was an administrative enquiry, then there was no need to invoke section 32.This is not an administrative enquiry & the maintainability point of going to CAT does not arise. Both these enquiries are addressed under section 32 of CrPC. The 2nd one is by the Anti Corruption Bureau, so the Prevention of Corruption Act will apply. Therefore an investigation or any enquiry cannot start without prior approval."

Referring to Pandey's recusal from the enquiries, Jethmalani said, "The State Government thinks everyone is naive that they have now removed Sanjay Pandey. But Mr Sanjay Pandey was an emissary of the State Government. He was trying to cajole Mr Param Bir Singh into withdrawing his complaint. The DGP of Maharashtra was offering to mediate between the government & me."