Home India Sacked earlier than retirement: Delhi HC declines to remain dismissal of Ishrat...

Sacked earlier than retirement: Delhi HC declines to remain dismissal of Ishrat case probe officer

Satish1 2 1

The Delhi High Court Monday declined to remain the order dismissing Satish Chandra Verma, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer who had assisted the SIT in its probe into the 2004 Ishrat Jahan alleged faux encounter case, a month earlier than his scheduled retirement.

The bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela, nonetheless, requested the Centre to file a reply inside eight weeks to Verma’s plea difficult his dismissal.

He was dismissed from service on August 30, a month forward of his scheduled retirement on September 30.

The dismissal order adopted a departmental inquiry over prices that included interacting “with public media” when he was Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO).

Subscriber Only Stories

On September 19, the Supreme Court had stayed the dismissal order by every week, making it clear that after every week, it might be as much as the Delhi High Court to resolve whether or not or to not proceed with the keep. The Supreme Court allowed Verma to make appropriate adjustments to his petition within the High Court.

On Monday, the High Court noticed that one of many allegations towards the petitioner was that he had given an interview to a information channel in 2016 with none “authorisation or permission from the competent authority and spoke unauthorizedly on matters which were not within the sphere of his duty”.

The counsel for the petitioner, the bench mentioned, didn’t dispute that the petitioner had given the interview to the information channel however acknowledged that it was “given under compelling circumstances” and that “contents of the interview have not been proved in accordance with law”.

Advertisement

Stating that it had perused the interview transcript, the bench mentioned, “We are of the view that at this stage the order of termination dated 30-08-2022 does not warrant any interference as petitioner is to superannuate, in any event, on 30.09.2022. Consequently we are not inclined to stay or interdict the order of dismissal dated 30-08-2022 at this stage.”

“Let reply be filed within eight weeks. Rejoinder within four weeks thereafter. It is clarified that in case petitioner is successful in the writ petition, petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of his superannuation in accordance with rules,” the bench mentioned, directing that the matter be listed on January 24, 2023.

It additionally directed that the “original record of the enquiry shall be produced in the Court on the next date of hearing”.

Source

Exit mobile version