C DINAKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGING mala fides attributed to the second respondent and violation of all norms and rules pertaining to service jurisprudence, the seniormost ips officer in the state has sought Justice to vindicate his position, which is alleged to have been lowered down by reducing him in status and subjecting him to humiliation by placing him virtually under subordination of respondent 4, admittedly much junior police officer in the ips cadre. Court has been moved to protect the interests of the higher police officers and other civil servants by relieving them from the alleged clutches of the politicians by providing a credible mechanism for their promotion, particularly the selection of the police chief in the state. Effective measures are prayed to be provided to give credibility to the services by providing them security of tenure by protecting their status under the rules keeping in view their seniority, performance, merit and reputation. Relying upon the judgment of the apex court in vineet narain and others v union of India and another, it is prayed that the police officers, particularly the appointment of police chief of a state should not be left at the mercy of the ministers. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in union of India and others v sushil kumar modi and others, wherein it was cautioned that the executive government should not be allowed to interfere with the performance of the statutory duties of the investigating agencies. No doubt, the executive have the general power to review the working of the agencies under him, but the officers employed in the departments and the agencies under the control of a minister cannot be permitted to be treated as serfs. The executive state is expected not to create circumstances by resort to dubious actions which may give a general expression of bias or vindictiveness, with the result that the faith of the common man is shaken in general and the confidence of the aggrieved government official shattered in particular resulting in the weakening of bureaucracy, which if continuously perpetuated would result in the collapse of the administrative edifice, upon which the political executive of the state rests. Personal bias, likes or dislikes and considerations not connected with the post sought to be filled should not be permitted to influence the decision making process while making selections and promotions, particularly of high officials and especially the heads of the departments as in the present case, the chief of the police force in the state of karnataka.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the petitioner is the senior-mostdirector general of police in the state. Undisputedly, respondent 4 is junior to him as director general of police and was not even a director general before 10-1-1997. His alleged promotion as director general on 10-1-1997 is also disputed by the petitioner. The services of respondent 4, who was special director, intelligence bureau, New Delhi, were placed at the disposal of the state government by the government of India and he is shown to have been simultaneously promoted to the cadre of director general and inspector general of police (dg and igp) in the pay scale of Rs. 7,600-8,000 as is evident from 6th of March, 1997 (Annexure-A ). He was simultaneously appointed with immediate effect as dg and igp, Bangalore vice Shri a. p. durai, whose services were placed at the disposal of the union government, for being appointed as the director general, railway protection force, New Delhi, on central deputation basis.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to have a resume of the facts as narrated in the pleadings of the parties. According to the petitioner, he was appointed to the Indian police service (ips) in the year 1963 and was allotted to Karnataka state. He states to have served in various capacities in different parts of Karnataka state and for a tenure under the government of india. He has claimed that throughout his career he rendered highly meritorious service discharging his duties most efficiently by exhibiting the highest degree of integrity in his personal and official conduct. In recognition of his outstanding merit, the government of India is stated to have selected and deputed him as the sole representative of the country to attend the interpol conference at paris in the year 1972. He was awarded police medal in 1994 and president's police medal for distinguished service in 1996. The post of dg and igp, which is a cadre post can be filled up by appointing an officer belonging to the ips on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is submitted that there are in all 4 posts of director general of police in the state of karnataka, which are designated as: