R R TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioners, who claim to be public spirited persons and have taken up various issues of public importance in public interest, have filed this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the grant of extension of service to (i) Dr. P.S. Pasricha, Director General of Police, Maharashtra State (Respondent No.6), and (ii) Shri D.N. Jadhav, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (respondent No.7) on the ground that it is contrary to the service Rules. The service profile of these officers, particularly of respondent No.6, against whom incriminating documents have been found and an Inquiry Committee was constituted, do not deserve extension in such a high public office. Besides this, they have further prayed that respondent no.3 be directed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, 2006 (9) Scale 444, and set up a Police Establisment Board and a State Security Commission. These prayers are founded on the averments that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are Senior I.P.S. Officers and had been selected to the post of Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra and Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, respectively. Both these officers were to retire on or about 30th November, 2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The Home Department of the State of Maharashtra had sent a proposal to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, for approval of the Central Government for extension of service to these two officers. The petitioners filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of the relevant files. However, even before they could receive these papers, they have filed the present petition in this Court which, according to them, was of great urgency. According to the petitioners, they have come to know from the newspaper reports that the sixth Respondent's extension has been granted as he was concerned with handling of the 'Guru'Ta'Gaddi', the tercentenary celebrations of the consecration of the Guru Granth Sahib, in Nanded and seventh respondent's extension is required on the ground that he was Commissioner of Police only for nine months and three months extension was requested and approved by the Central Government.

(2.) Rule 16 (1) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, requires to the effect that certain class of people under the said Rules can be granted extension limited to the extent of three months and that too limited to the conditions stated in the Rules. According to the petitioners, as on 30th November, 2007, these two officers had no such attributes of indispensability and that they were not involved in any budget work and also that they were not full time members of any Official Committee which was to be wound up in a short time and neither was the case that such officers were more competent than the other incumbent IPS Officers. Extension of tenure was an exception and was thus discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As already noticed, the proposal for extension which had been approved by the Central Government and orders of extension of three months issued in favour of both these respondents are vitiated and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have further pleaded that no credible mechanism to decide matters related to extension of the incumbents has been followed and their extensions are contrary to the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, and All India Services ( Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, where they ought to have superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the notification dated 30th November, 2005, issued by the Central Government, the exception of this rule is only applicable to the Chief Secretaries and not the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police. None of the respondents satisfied the ingredients of the proviso to Rule 16 (1) of the above Rules. In relation to respondent No.6, it has been stated that since he was facing enquiries of serious allegations, he ought not to have been placed in such a sensitive position. The enquiry was instituted against this respondent on the basis of Tehelka report which was printed in the weekly magazine (Tehelka) and also aired on T.V. Channel "Aaj Tak". According to that article, the Enquiry Committee which was constituted against the said respondent did not even call the Tehelka reporter. They had serious incriminating materials against the said respondent in their possession. The question was even raised in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. In these circumstances, the said respondent ought not to have been granted any extension on such sensitive post which is bound to have adverse effect on the law and order situation as well as administration of criminal justice in the State.

(3.) As already noticed, two prayers were made in the writ petition. However, during the course of hearing, emphasis was laid only on the reliefs prayed for in relation to grant of extention to these respondents.