Writ Petition No. 5765 of 2001. Case: Union of India and Anr. Vs C. Dinakar and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 5765 of 2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General and Dinesh Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel and For Respondents: G. Kasturi, Adv., B. Manohar, Additional Government Adv. and C. Dinakar, Party in person |
| Judges | Ashok Bhan, Chidananda Ullal and G.C. Bharuka, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11, Order 6 Rules 2, 7; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 32, 123(1), 141, 142, 144, 309, 312; Central Bureau of Investigation (Senior Police Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996; Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998 - Sections 4A, 4A(3), 26; Central Bureau of Investigation (Senior Police Posts) ... |
| Citation | 2001 (6) KarLJ 213 |
| Judgement Date | October 11, 2001 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
(At Bangalore)
-
Union of India has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1020 of 1999, dated 8-2-2001 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the appointment of Sri R.K. Raghavan, (respondent 7) as the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CUD, at the instance of Sri C. Dinakar, IPS, respondent 1, herein on the ground that the petitioner had acted against the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Narain and Another v Union of India and Others, regarding the procedure to be followed for the selection and appointment of Director of CBI.
-
Facts.--The basic premise laid down by respondent 1 in the O.A. before the Tribunal is that both he and respondent 7 were appointed to the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS') in the year 1963. On the date of appointment of Director of CBI on 31-12-1998 the inter se seniority positions of the first four officers in the All India IPS seniority list were as follows:
(i) R.K. Sharma(1962);
(ii) H.P. Kumar (1962);
(iii) R.K. Raghavan (1963) - respondent 7;
(iv) C. Diriakar (1963) - applicant.
As on the date of selection which led to the issuance of the order impugned, the IPS Officers at SI. Nos. (i) and (ii) above, namely, R.K. Sharma and H.P. Kumar were reportedly facing enquiries on some allegations and hence were not considered for the said selection.
-
It was averred that the post of Director of CBI was one of the two senior most posts in the IPS in the country and is under the Government of India. It is a selection post in the IPS. IPS being an All India Service, the IPS Officers are governed by the All India Services Act, 1951. The conditions of service of IPS Officers are regulated by the IPS Pay Rules, 1954, made under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act (for short, 'the 1954 Rules'). That the post of CBI Director is one of the "posts carrying pay above the timescale of pay" as mentioned in Schedule III-C to the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 with fixed pay of Rs. 26.000/- per month as revised with effect from 1-1-1996, and hence appointment to this post should be in accordance with Rule 3(2-A) of these Rules. Rule 3(2-A) reads:
"Appointment to the selection grade and posts carrying pay above the timescale of pay in the Indian Police Service shall be made by selection on merit with due regard to seniority".
-
Specific case pleaded by respondent 1 in his application was that the post of the Director of CBI is a post under the Government of India and only the IPS Officers of various cadres who are found fit and put on the panel of Government of India are eligible for consideration. It was further stated therein that IPS Officers of and above the grade of DIG of Police are put on such panel by selection on merit with due regard to seniority according to the prescribed procedure once in every year. Empanelling of DIGP and Inspectors General of Police ('IGF, for short) is done by the Central Police Establishment Board under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and that of Director General of Police CDGP', for short) and the Additional DGP is done by the Cabinet Secretariat. IPS Officers are selected from these panels and appointed to various posts under the Government of India as and when vacancies arise.
-
It was further averred that respondent 1 had learnt and which he believed to be true that he had been selected as per prescribed procedure and put in the panel of DGP (Central), respondent 7 was not put in the panel of DGP (Central) in the year 1997. In the month of February 1997, respondent 1 was asked by the then Prime Minister of India Sri H.D. Devegowda, whether he was willing to go on deputation to the Government of India to serve as Director, CBI as there was a proposal to change the then Director, Sri Joginder Singh. Respondent 1 was DGP, Corps of Detectives, Training, Special Units and Economic Offences in Ban galore at that time. On expressing his willingness for this assignment, the Government of India reportedly asked the Government of Karnataka whether it was willing to spare the services of respondent 1. State of Karnataka reportedly agreed to the proposal. Before respondent 1 could be appointed as the Director, CBI, Congress (I) withdrew support to the Government of Sri H.D. Devegowda and Sri I.K. Gujral became the Prime Minister of India. Sri R.C. Sharma who was junior to respondent 1 was appointed as the Director, CBI. Sri Sharma retired from service on 31st of January, 1998.
-
Meanwhile Supreme Court of India pronounced the judgment in Vineet Narain's case, supra, on 18th of December, 1997. Pending appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (for short, 'the CVC'), the CBI Director's post which fell vacant, could not be filled up.
-
Respondent 1 sent a detailed letter on 1st of March, 1998 to the Union of India and CVC requesting for considering him for appointment to the post of CBI Director. On 26th of August, 1998, Union of India promulgated an ordinance providing for the appointment of the CVC. On 1st of September, 1998 Sri N. Vittal, an IAS Officer (retired) on 1960 batch was appointed as the CVC. He took charge of his office on 3rd of September, 1998. On 31st of October, 1998 Sri Vittal told "Star News" that the committee consisting of himself, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, met and prepared a panel of names of three IPS Officers for the post of Director, CBI and sent it to the Union of India. Respondent 1 had learnt and which he believed to be true that the said three names were as follows in the order of merit:
Sriyuths:
-
C. Dinakar(1963);
-
R.K. Raghavan (1963);
-
Trinath Mishra.
-
It was then submitted that the Intelligence Bureau gave an incorrect adverse report about respondent 1 and the ACC acting on the report of the Intelligence Bureau denied the post of Director of CBI to respondent 1. On the basis of the above facts and grounds challenge was laid to the appointment of respondent 7. That respondent 1 had better merit than respondent 7. He had been awarded Meritorious Medal and Presidential Medal, whereas respondent 7 had been awarded Meritorious Medal only, That Sri R.K. Raghavan, had connection with the political leaders and in particular Ms. Jayalalitha, then C.M. of Tamil Nadu. Ms. Jayalalitha was not made a party respondent.
-
Union of India filed its statement of objection to the aforesaid application, in the counter-affidavit it was pointed out that the statements made by respondent 1 (paragraphs 4,5 and 4.19) with regard to the empanelment of respondent 1 as well as the fact that he was in the panel of three names recommended by the CBI Selection Board to the ACC was factually erroneous, and therefore, the whole basis of the application was on an incorrect factual premise. It was pointed out that the respondent 1 was considered by the concerned selection committee for inclusion in the panel of DGP at the Centre twice, the first time in 1996 and again in 1998, but on both the occasions the committee did not recommend his name for inclusion in the panel for holding DG level post at the Centre. The requirement of empanelment was pointed out with reference to the Central Bureau of Investigation (Senior Police Post) Recruitment Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the 1996 Rules').
-
Reference was also made to the direction given by the Supreme Court with regard to the selection process for appointment of the Director, CBI and the consequential Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 20-5-1998 wherein the procedure for selection was laid down consistent with the observations of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case, supra. It was then stated in paragraph 5 of the preliminary submissions that with regard to the present appointment, the CBI Selection Board met on 11-11-1998, under the Chairmanship of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and that the ACRs and the service profiles of 33 IPS Officers belonging to the 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 batches and empanelled to hold the post of Director General of Police under the Central Government were considered. It was further stated that respondent 7 had been empanelled as DGP (Central) and considered for the post of Director, CBI along with other empanelled officers. Respondent 1 was not considered as he had not been empanelled as DGP (Central). The ACRs and service profiles of the officers were assessed on the basis of their seniority, integrity and their experience in investigation and anti-corruption work. A panel of three names indicated in the descending order of preference was prepared. The panel included the name of respondent 7. The aforesaid panel of names were thereafter sent to the ACC for its consideration and orders. ACC selected respondent 7 for the post of Director, CBI and consequential orders thereafter were issued. Respondent 7 took over as Director of CBI on 31st of December, 1998. In view of the above submission inter alia it was submitted that the application filed by respondent 1 was without merit and liable to be dismissed.
-
In view of the repudiation of the factual averment made by respondent 1 by the Union of India in its counter-statement regarding the empanelment of respondent 1 as DGP, Central under the 1996 Rules and his empanelment by the CBI Selection Board recommending him for the post of Director of CBI, respondent 1 filed Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 2000 requesting that Sri Devegowda, the then Prime Minister be summoned to give evidence; for a direction to the CVC to produce the proceedings and other relevant records of the meeting of the committee under his Chairmanship held on 31st of October, 1998 and also file an affidavit touching upon this aspect; direct the Union of India, to produce the relevant files about the empanelment to the grade of DGP conducted during the years 1996,1997 and 1998 and permit respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial