Union Govt Approaches Supreme Court Against HC Quashing Compulsory Retirement Of Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh

While hearing the case relating to compulsory retirement of Chhattisgarh IPS officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who is facing accusations of corruption, extortion and sedition, the Supreme Court today asked the Union if the limited scope of judicial review prevents Courts from considering allegations of frame-ups.

"Supposing [there is] falsity, [it] weighs with the authority, one is subjected to compulsory retirement. What is his remedy then?", questioned Justice SVN Bhatti.

Voicing similar sentiment, Justice Hrishikesh Roy added, "Take an absolute case of somebody being framed...meaning thereby, he is such a person who is unliked, unpopular...and maybe trouble-maker for his colleagues...they may gang up and frame him. If such a confusion reaches the CAT, can you say, on the strength of judgments you are proposing to cite, that the court will not go into that kind of allegation?"

A bench of Justices Roy and Bhatti was dealing with the Union's challenge to a Delhi High Court order, whereby the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside Singh's compulsory retirement was upheld. The Court briefly heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for the Union) and adjourned the hearing till December 2.

Briefly put, Singh is accused of the offence under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 201, 467 and 471 of IPC.

During today's hearing, SG Mehta argued on behalf of the Union that the High Court sat in appeal over a compulsory retirement case, even though the scope of judicial review in such cases is limited. In response to the bench's query regarding person's remedy in the face of frame-ups, the SG said that the earlier government was backing the frame-up claim and the current state government is supporting Singh. So, the Union is neutral and the matter needs to be looked at based on the parameters of judicial review (whether there is perversity, malafides, etc.).

Going through the record, the bench opined that the sequence of cases registered against Singh weighed with the authority and set in motion the disciplinary proceedings against him. Justice Bhatti observed that the High Court merely looked into the issues and did not go deep into them or made observations that would completely exonerate Singh.

At this point, the SG asserted that findings of the Tribunal and the High Court were perverse and sought time to place on record certain additional documents/judgments.

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for Singh and informed that an Enquiry Officer for the disciplinary proceedings has not been appointed till date. He further contended that Singh had an impeccable record throughout. He was head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in the state, but in November, 2018, the ruling government changed. Following the same, in 2020, 4-5 things happened simultaneously - (i) a 5-member Inquiry Committee was set up to probe the suicide incident (now quashed by CAT), (ii) Singh's Annual Performance Appraisal Report for 2019-20 was downgraded from 7.90 to 6.00 with adverse remarks; and (iii) 3 FIRs were registered against him (now quashed by the High Court).

Background

Singh, a member of the Indian Police Services, was allotted to the Madhya Pradesh Cadre. After bifurcation, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh cadre.

In 2012, a Superintendent of Police died by suicide and in his suicide letter, he mentioned that he was harassed by his boss and a judge of the High Court. Singh was his Supervisory Officer but after a CBI investigation, no case for abetment of suicide was made against him.

Subsequently, upon receiving information alleging accumulation of disproportionate assets by Singh, an enquiry was conducted. An FIR was registered under Section 13(1)(b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and during investigation, Sections 201, 467 and 471 IPC were added.

On July 1, 2021, the police raided Singh's residence and allegedly found pieces of paper in a drain behind the house, which were later reconstructed. The contents of the reconstructed documents allegedly indicated vengeance and hatred against the state government. As a result, an FIR was registered against Singh for committing offence under Sections 124A & 153A of IPC.

On 09.03.2023, Chhattisgarh government informed the Union that Singh was not fit to be retained in service. Vide an order dated 20.07.2023, he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.

He challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in his favor and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Union challenged this order before the High Court, but the plea was rejected.

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus GURJINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024