New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Odisha government for withdrawing the integrity certificate of senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath after CBI’s request to question him in connection with a criminal case related to the recruitment of Sub-Inspector (SI) in the state.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition against Nath’s exclusion from the list of officers being considered for appointment as Director General of Police (DGP) following the communication from CBI.
During the hearing, the Court sought to know whether the state was treating Nath, a former Chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, as an accused in the case by withdrawing his integrity certificate.
“Withholding integrity certificate is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?” it asked.
Justice Bagchi said that “a shadow may be cast” on the officer by such action. The Court said it would examine whether CBI’s response about questioning Nath was sufficient to withhold the integrity certificate.
Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the CBI investigation is still in progress. He further submitted that Nath’s performance appraisals did not mention anything about the criminal investigation.
After the CBI’s request, the state government excluded him and forwarded a revised proposal containing integrity certificates in respect of only ten officers for empanelment, Mehta added.
On Wednesday, the Court had asked the state to clarify whether it was aware of CBI’s request to question Nath when it included his name in the panel of officers for appointment as DGP.
Mehta said the process was started six months before the earlier DGP was to retire and when the State subsequently came to know about the facts, it would have been failing in its duty if it had not informed the UPSC.
In response, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy representing Nath said his integrity cannot be said to be under cloud after one year of investigation. The CBI communication did not contain any specific allegation against Nath and only indicated that he might be examined at a later stage, she said.
Addressing the issue of the IPS officer’s alleged connection with the petitioner, Nundy said Nath has stated on affidavit that he does not know the PIL petitioner, has never spoken to the person over the phone and has no acquaintance through any intermediary.
The Court said it will examine whether the State was required to inform the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) about the case.
During the day’s proceedings, SG Tushar Mehta apologised in the Court for a remark made by Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya about Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran during the hearing of the case.
The apology came a day after Acharya remarked that Ramachandran was presenting the case before the Supreme Court as if he were appearing for the petitioner.
Ramachandran had taken strong objection to the remark and said the AG should withdraw it. “I will withdraw from this case if such an allegation by an Advocate General is allowed to be on record. In my 50 years of practice, I have not been told that I have been unfair in this court,” he had said.
Responding to the development, Ramachandran said, “Very gracious of him, even though he was not involved.”
CJI Surya Kant said the Court would not allow such allegations, while Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed the Bench does not take note of such comments and that the Amicus was not on trial.
Ramachandran, however, insisted the remark could not be allowed to pass.
“I have been put on trial! An AG saying something about Amicus… 50 years in this court,” he said.
Acharya subsequently clarified he had “profound respect” for Ramachandran but said he had to place the facts before the Court.
The Court today also considered the state government’s decision to create two temporary ex-cadre posts allegedly to alter the zone of consideration for appointing DGP.
Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, representing the petitioner challenging the appointment process, argued that the State created two ex-cadre posts and got them promoted “with immediate effect” in violation of the rules
SG Mehta told the Court that smaller States have a lesser number of sanctioned strength and thus more names of officers were sent.
Seeking time to respond to certain queries raised by the court regarding ex-cadre posts, Mehta requested an adjournment. The matter has been posted for hearing next week.
