NEW DELHI: Senior advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioner, on Tuesday alleged before the Supreme Court that there was a conspiracy to disqualify a senior officer before the UPSC nomination and appoint a junior officer of choice as DGP.
"Had there been a shortage of DGP-level officers in the state, the Odisha government could have recommended names of junior officers for consideration," senior advocate Chidambaram contended.
The senior lawyer made these submissions to a bench of the top court, headed by the CJI Surya Kant, which was hearing a petition filed by one Jayant Kumar Das, alleging violation of the top court's ruling in DGP appointment process.
The hearing of the case relating to the nomination of the state police chief (DGP) will be continued for the second consecutive day in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
It is to be noted that after the Odisha government requested to defer the UPSC Empanelment Committee meeting, the integrity certificate of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath was withheld. In this connection, the Odisha government had requested the Centre for creation of two ex-cadre posts, which has received central government approval. All these developments have paved the way for consideration of the two promoted officers for the post of state police chief. A contentious situation has arisen due to exclusion of a senior officer and making two junior officers eligible for consideration for the state DGP post.
At the fag end of the hearing on Tuesday, the CJI observed that whether the two promoted DGP level officers or whether Nath's name can find place in the list is a matter for consideration and adjudication.
Chidambaram also argued that the list sent by the Odisha government in May contained names of three DGP-level officers. The Odisha government's list contains names of eight ADG-level officers. There is no mention in the CBI letter for declaring DGP Nath ineligible. He has been illegally excluded from the list.
On behalf of Nath, senior advocate Karuna Nundy drew the bench's attention, submitting that he has a 32-year unblemished police service career. Advocate Nundy questioned why his integrity certificate was withdrawn.
The case will be heard on Wednesday in the top court's same Bench.
