SC to consider contempt plea against Jharkhand CEO appointment


The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider hearing the pending contempt motion against the Jharkhand government and Chief Police Officer (DGP) Neeraj Sinha, alleging he held the post even after his January 31 retirement. .

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said it issued notices on Monday on a new plea challenging the appointment of SK Singhal as Director General of Police (DGP) of Bihar and that this motion for contempt in expectation can also be associated with this.

Lawyer Vikas Mehta, who was appearing for contempt petitioner Rajesh Kumar, asked for a list of the plea saying he was not heard after September 3, 2021, when he was last listed .

“In other words, we had published the notice in the Bihar case yesterday. We will publish it with that,” said the bench which also included judges AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli.

On Monday, the same bench sent notices to the Bihar government and UPSC regarding another plea filed by one Narendra Kumar Dhiraj, challenging Singhal’s appointment as DGP, saying she violated the court’s judgment. supreme.

The Supreme Court also issued an opinion to Singhal, a cadre IPS officer from Bihar from 1988, who was appointed DGP of the state in December 2020.

As per the contempt plea, Sinha held the highest post in Jharkhand police even after his retirement on January 31.

Plea was mentioned a few times earlier also for the hearing.

The Supreme Court on July 14, 2021 had issued notices of plea of ​​contempt against the state government, its top officials and the UPSC for alleged violation of its verdict.

He later made Sinha a party to the contempt plea as well.

“The Respondents (State Government, DGP and others) are continually violating the orders made by this Court. It has come to the knowledge of the Petitioner that the mandate of Respondent 3 (DGP) who was appointed by the Government of the Status as DG and IGP (Inspector General of Police), Jharkhand expired on 31st January.

“Respondent 3 has passed retirement age but continues to hold the current position which is also within the teeth of the orders made by this court,” said the interim application which requested an urgent hearing of the contempt plea. pending.

On September 3, 2021, the Supreme Court had arrested the state government and the Union Civil Service Commission for their role in appointing an acting DGP in alleged violation of the judgment of the higher court which had set a two-year term for a state police. chief who is to be chosen from a list of senior police officers to be prepared by the UPSC.

He was upset that the state government had appointed IPS agent Neeraj Sinha as ad hoc Director General of Police (DGP) and that the UPSC had refused to prepare a list of senior police officers for DGP selection.

Prior to this, on July 14 last year, the higher court issued the notices of show cause to the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand and the President of the UPSC, on the plea requesting contempt action against them for the alleged violation of the 2006 High Court Judgment rendered in the Prakash Singh case.

It was alleged that Jharkhand Mukti Morcha-led Chief Minister Hemant Soren and the Congress coalition government flouted the verdict, which apart from giving extensive guidelines on police reforms, set a guaranteed mandate of two years for DGPs.

The UPSC was charged with contempt of the Supreme Court by failing to form a panel for the selection of the new DGP for Jharkhand.

The 2006 supreme court verdict in the Prakash Singh case said that a state’s DGP should be “selected by the state government from among the three most senior officers in the Department who have been nominated for promotion to this rank by the UPSC based on their seniority, very good record and diverse experience leading the police.” And, once he has been selected for the position, he is expected to have a minimum tenure of at least two years, regardless of when he retired, he said.

The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission following any action taken against him under the Rules of All Indian Services (Discipline and appeal) or following conviction by a court. in a criminal offense or corruption case, or if he is otherwise unable to perform his duties, he had said.

(This story has not been edited by the Devdiscourse team and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)


Comments are closed.