Mohd. Mustafa vs Union of India - 2021 Supreme(SC) 688

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 688

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Mohd. Mustafa – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6905-6909 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14623, 14982-14985 of 2020
Decided on : 16-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Ejaz Maqbool, Saif Zia, Gaurav Ray, Shivendra Singh, Pooja Dhar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B.V. Balaram Das, Vardhman Kaushik , Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Karan Bharihoke, Siddhant Sharma, Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Advocates

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 32, 142 and 316 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 306 - Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Sections 3(2) and 3(3) - Abetment of suicide - Selection and appointment - Post of DGP - Service allocated to Punjab cadre - Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out retired on attaining age of superannuation during pendency of these appeals - Contentions raised by Appellants in both civil appeals are similar shall refer to facts of Civil Appeal arising was inducted to Indian Police Service in 1986 and allocated to Punjab cadre - Post of DGP State was required to be filled up due to ensuing retirement of Mr. Suresh Arora - Respondent No.1-UPSC to initiate process for appointment to post of DGP (HoPF) for State of Punjab - Rank of DGP/additional DGP and who had completed thirty years of service was forwarded by State of Punjab – Held, Court hold that belated raising of objection against inclusion of Respondent 3 in Committee under Section 3(2) appears to be a calculated move on petitioners part - He is an intelligent person and knows that in terms of Rule 9(2) (c) of Judges (Inquiry) Rules - Presiding Officer of Committee is required to forward report to Chairman within a period of three months from the date charges framed under Section 3(3) of Act were served upon him - He wants to adopt every possible tactic to delay submission of report which may in all probability compel Committee to make a request to Chairman to extend the time in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2)(c) - Court had requested Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of person in question, duly noticing that proceedings initiated had progressed only to stage of framing of charges and nomination of another jurist would not hamper proceedings - Court do not find any error committed by High Court in setting aside the judgment of Tribunal and upholding selection and appointment - Appeals are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Governor of Punjab by which Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) (hereinafter referred to "DGP (HoPF)”), the Appellants filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. By an order dated 17.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 07.02.2019 on the ground that preparation of the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was in contravention of a judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 apart from others. Further, a direction was given to the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UPSC”) and the State of Punjab to conduct selection for the post of DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab afresh. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the UPSC, the State of Punjab and Mr. Dinkar Gupta. Mr. Siddharth Chattopadhyaya, the Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.14982-14985 of 2020, also filed a Writ Petition aggrieved by the rejection of the plea of bias. Writ Petitions filed by UPSC, the State of Punjab and Mr. Dinkar Gupta were allowed by the High Court and the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside. Writ Petition filed by Mr. Siddharth Chattopadhyaya (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) was dismissed. These appeals are filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment of the High Court dated 06.11.2020.

2. Mohd. Mustafa, the Appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.14623 of 2020, retired on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of these appeals. As the contentions raised by Appellants in both the civil appeals are similar, we shall refer to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14982-14985 of 2020. Mr. Siddharth Chattopadhyaya was inducted to Indian Police Service in 1986 and allocated to Punjab cadre. The post of DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab was required to be filled up due to the ensuing retirement of Mr. Suresh Arora. A letter was written by the Union of India on 19.01.2019 to Respondent No.1-UPSC to initiate the process for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab. A list of 12 officers who were working in the rank of DGP/additional DGP and who had completed thirty years of service was forwarded by the State of Punjab. The Appellant was included in the said list.

3. The Empanelment Committee constituted by the UPSC finalised a panel consisting of Mr. Dinkar Gupta-Respondent No. 4, Mr. M.K. Tiwari-Respondent No.6 and Mr. V.K. Bhawra Respondent No.7. The State Government selected and appointed Respondent No.4 as DGP (HoPF) from the said panel. Challenging the selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 as DGP (HoPF), the Appellant and Mohd. Mustafa filed Original Applications in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 17.01.2020, allowed the Original Applications and set aside the panel prepared by the Empanelment Committee on 04.02.2019. Consequently, the selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 as DGP (HoPF) was set aside. The Tribunal directed preparation of a panel of three senior-most officers afresh strictly in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh’s case (supra).

4. The Tribunal was of the opinion that this Court in Prakash Singh’s case settled the parameters to be followed for selection of the Director Generals of Police. UPSC deviated from the procedure prescribed by this Court, rendering the selection invalid. The Tribunal held that this Court specified three factors which have to be followed for selection of DGP. Seniority, being one of the factors, along with good record of service and range of experience to head a police force was not given due importance by the Empanelment Committee in finalising the panel. Draft Guidelines 2009 frame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document