MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday grilled the state and questioned how on November 1 last year could then state chief secretary Sitaram Kunte sign as selection committee member on three names recommended for the post of Maharashtra Director General of Police and a week later write to UPSC saying the panel had erred in its decision-making and seek consideration of Sanjay Pandey's name.
"It is not proper for the CS (Sitaram Kunte) to have written on November 8," the bench remarked orally at the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the state to expedite appointment of a permanent DGP for Maharashtra. Pandey, as the seniormost officer, is acting DGP.
The state, through its advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, sought to file an affidavit in reply, saying the post had fallen vacant suddenly after former DGP Subodh Jaiswal's transfer to the CBI, but the HC bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik, who heard his submissions, asked how could a reply improve its case any further beyond the submissions and documents. Kumbhakoni said the issue of candidates' appraisal and grade was discussed, but the HC orally observed that it was not so mentioned in the minutes of the meeting and added, "Minutes do not even refer to the chief secretary's objections. This is nothing but an afterthought. There is nothing in the minutes."
Kumbhakoni said because of a misinterpretation to treat 'very good' as 'good', the committee had recommended three names at the time, and on finding the error had written to UPSC and sent all records for the fourth candidate.
The bench orally said, "What we find from (the) PIL was a meeting on November 1, 2021 and commission recommended three names. If CS was a party to it, can he later on say commission was not right in discarding 'A' or 'B' member for post? Can a selection committee member write back that committee has not considered this or that aspect?" The HC said, "If he (CS) was unsure he should have asked the other members to defer it for some time." The HC said to the state, "After having signed this, is it open to erstwhile CS to have said that committee has erred. Once signed some sanctity has to be given...cannot renege; there is a procedure...once you have signed the proceedings, you cannot claim the decision was erroneous and that it be reconsidered."
The selection committee had recommended Hemant Nagrale, Rajnish Seth and K Venkatesham for the DGP's post but not Pandey, said ASG Anil Singh for the Centre. He said, "How can committee raise objections now?" He added the SC has said the state cannot be with be without a permanent DGP.
Abhinav Chandrachud, counsel for the petitioner, a city-based advocate Datta Mane, cited SC rulings to show why the state ought to expedite the appointment. He said by asking the UPSC to reconsider recommendations and delaying the process of appointment of a permanent DGP, the Maharashtra government was flouting the SC ruling on police reforms in the Prakash Singh case.
The HC too noted that SC has said the DGP should have a two-year tenure and already, the three names recommended would have less than that. The Chief Justice said, "We will not delay the hearing any further" but, giving time to the AG to produce any judgement to show why its submission that the fourth name be considered was correct, posted the hearing first on board on Tuesday.
The HC asked the state, "Why don't you accept the recommendations with grace?"
The AG said, "But for this communication sent by the CS which is pending with UPSC." He said UPSC may be asked to decide on whether it was considering the fourth name too, and once that was clear, the state would proceed. The AG said, "We continuously reminded UPSC to take a decision - whether it is inclined to consider fourth name or just three."
