UNION OF INDIA Vs. C DINAKAR IPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India herein is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11-10-2001 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 5765 of 2001 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order dated 8-2-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 1020 of 1999.

(2.) The first respondent herein was a member of the Indian Police Service (IPS) of 1963 batch. He although was said to be one of the senior-most officers for the purpose of consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ignoring his case, Shri R. K. Raghavan, Respondent No. 6 herein was appointed therein. Questioning the said appointment as also the procedure adopted by the Committee being violative of the directions of this Court for appointment of Director, CBI in Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India ((1998) 1 SCC 226), the first respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal.

(3.) The Committee constituted for the aforementioned purpose was required to draw a panel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority, integrity and experience in investigation and anti-corruption work. Final selection, however, was to be made by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) from the panel recommended by the Committee. The name of the first respondent herein was admittedly not included in the panel prepared by the appellant herein for the purpose of consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Director, CBI. The panel of IPS officers which was placed before the Committee for its consideration consisted names of 33 I.P.S. officers, out of which 17 officers did not have the requisite background or experience in anti-corruption activities. Out of the remaining 16 officers, a panel of three names was prepared by the Committee. The first respondent questioned the selection process adopted by the Central Government as regard empanelment of the so-called eligible officers, inter alia, on the ground that the same was contrary to and inconsistent with the directions of this Court in Vineet Narain's case (supra). The stand of the Central Government, however, was that such a procedure was supplemental to the directions of this Court which had already been in existence for appointment to the post of Director of CBI as on the date of the judgment thereof, namely, 18-12-1997. The said stand was taken purported to be relying on or on the basis of doctrine of sub silentio, to which this Court in Vineet Narain (supra) apparently did not advert.