Back
Can be withheld over mere CBI query? questions Odisha government
The on Thursday sharply questioned the Odisha government for withdrawing the of senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath, effectively excluding him from consideration for the post of Director General of Police (DGP). The Court’s observation came during a hearing on a petition challenging the process adopted for selecting the state’s top police officer, and it raised fundamental questions about the threshold required to brand an officer’s integrity as being “.”
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing arguments over Nath’s exclusion from the list of officers empanelled for the DGP post. The state government had withdrawn his after the sought to question him in connection with a criminal case involving the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SI) in Odisha. The Court, visibly concerned by the implications of this action, asked whether the state was effectively treating Nath as an accused before any formal charges were framed.
“Withholding is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?” the Chief Justice asked, framing the core issue that dominated the day’s proceedings.
The Background: A CBI Request and an
The case arises from a CBI investigation into irregularities in the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors by the , which Nath formerly chaired. The investigation is still ongoing, and Nath has not been named as an accused in any of the FIRs. The CBI merely informed the state government that Nath “may be required to be examined” in the course of the probe.
Acting on this communication, the Odisha government withdrew the it had previously issued for Nath, thereby removing him from the panel of officers eligible for appointment as DGP. The state then forwarded a revised proposal to the containing integrity certificates for only ten officers, excluding Nath.
The had earlier asked the state to clarify whether it was aware of the CBI request when it initially included Nath’s name in the panel. , appearing for the state, explained that the selection process had begun six months before the previous DGP’s retirement, and that the state learned of the CBI’s request only later. He argued that the state was duty-bound to maintain complete transparency with the UPSC and would have been failing in its duty if it had not informed the commission about the development.
“As a measure of abundant caution and , the State reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers. It was not done only for one person,” Mehta submitted, adding that Nath’s performance appraisals did not mention any criminal investigation.
“A Shadow Cast”: The Court’s Comparison with a District Judge
The Bench was not easily persuaded by the state’s position. To illustrate the potential overreach, the Court drew an analogy with a district judge whose record room is under investigation for misappropriation. Even if such a judge were interrogated or later named as an accused, the Court questioned whether his should contain an resulting in the withholding of his .
“Let us say an investigation commences into misappropriation in the malkhana, in the record room of a judicial establishment. X is the District Judge of that establishment. He can be interrogated for that. He can be investigated for that. In an appropriate case, he can even be named as an accused. But merely because an FIR is registered concerning the record room, will the APAR of the District Judge contain an which would result in withholding his ?” the Court asked.
Justice Bagchi observed that such action could cast a “shadow” on the officer, even without any proven wrongdoing. The Court said it would examine whether the CBI’s response about merely questioning Nath was sufficient grounds to withhold his .
The Officer’s Defence: “Not Even a Whisper”
, representing Nath, forcefully argued that her client’s record was outstanding and that there was no complaint whatsoever against him. She pointed out that after a year of investigation, Nath’s name had not appeared in any FIR, let alone as an accused.
“Admittedly, my record is outstanding. There has been no complaint whatsoever against me, not even a whisper. The only thing against Mr Susanta Kumar Nath is the CBI letter saying that he ‘may be required to be examined’. Not one of the FIRs has a whisper of my name. Certainly not as an accused. I am not an accused in the FIR, the investigation is still ongoing and the leaked question papers were never found,” Nundy submitted.
She urged the Court to hold that the state had acted prematurely and unjustly in withdrawing the , especially when the investigation had not yet reached a conclusive stage.
The Controversy
The hearing also touched upon a separate but related issue: the Odisha government’s decision to create two temporary , allegedly to alter the for appointing the DGP. , appearing for the petitioner challenging the appointment process, argued that the state created these and promoted officers to them “with immediate effect,” in violation of the .
“The motive is clear. You create it now and you fill it now, so that they will be seamlessly absorbed against the regular vacancies. This is contrary to the ,” Chidambaram argued.
Solicitor General Mehta countered that smaller states have a lower sanctioned strength, necessitating the inclusion of more officers. He explained that one of the incumbents of an ex-cadre post was to retire in August 2026, and the promotion would only take effect from December 2026 for the next officer. He sought time to respond to the Court’s queries on this issue, and the matter was adjourned to the next week.
Legal Analysis: The Standard for Withholding Integrity Certificates
The ’s intervention in this case underscores a critical tension in public administration: the need for in high-level appointments versus the and fairness in career progression. The is a vital document that attests to an officer’s honesty and probity, and its withdrawal can have severe consequences, effectively ending an officer’s chances of promotion to the highest ranks.
The Court’s analogy with a district judge highlights the principle that mere involvement in an investigation—without being named as an accused or having any adverse material—should not automatically lead to a presumption of guilt. The state’s action in this case appears to have been based on a preliminary CBI request to question Nath, which is a far cry from a finding of wrongdoing. The Court’s query—“Are you putting him in the category of accused?”—goes to the heart of this distinction.
Furthermore, the Court’s observation that the state had put the cart before the horse suggests that the proper course would have been to await the outcome of the investigation or at least to have clearer evidence before taking such a drastic step. The requirement of “complete transparency” with the UPSC, while important, does not necessarily mean that every unsubstantiated inquiry must be disclosed in a manner that prejudices an officer’s career.
Impact on Legal Practice and Police Administration
This case has significant implications for police administration and service law across India. The DGP is the highest police officer in a state, and the selection process is governed by strict guidelines issued by the in the . Any exclusion from the must be based on objective and defensible grounds, not on mere suspicion or preliminary inquiries.
If the Court ultimately holds that the withdrawal of an requires a higher threshold—such as the filing of a or a —it would set an important precedent. State governments would be required to exercise greater caution before branding officers as “tainted” based on incomplete investigations. This could lead to more robust safeguards for senior officers during the selection process.
Additionally, the controversy over raises questions about the manipulation of seniority and eligibility criteria. The Court’s scrutiny of this aspect will likely reinforce the need for transparency and adherence to rules in the creation and filling of posts that affect the DGP selection.
Conclusion
The has adjourned the matter to the next week, granting the Odisha government time to respond to the queries regarding the . However, the core issue—whether the mere request to question an officer by the CBI justifies the withdrawal of his —remains unresolved. The Court’s pointed questions suggest that it is leaning towards a more protective stance for officers who have not been formally accused.
For legal professionals, this case is a reminder of the delicate balance between administrative discretion and fundamental fairness. The outcome will be closely watched by police officers, bureaucrats, and litigants alike, as it may redefine the contours of “integrity” in the context of high-level appointments. As the Court deliberates, the fate of Susanta Kumar Nath and the broader principles governing the DGP selection process hang in the balance.
