Supreme Court Questions Odisha’s Exclusion of IPS Officer in DGP Selection Process
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised concerns over the Odisha government’s decision to withdraw the integrity certificate of senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath. This move followed a request by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to question Nath in connection with a criminal investigation pertaining to the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SI).
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was reviewing a petition challenging Nath’s omission from the list of candidates for the Director General of Police (DGP) position. This exclusion came as a result of the CBI’s communication regarding Nath.
The court interrogated whether the state of Odisha was treating Nath, formerly the Chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, as an accused by retracting his integrity certificate. “Withholding integrity certificate is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?” the bench questioned.
Chief Justice Surya Kant further pointed out that the state might have acted prematurely, drawing an analogy to a district judge who might be investigated in a case of misappropriation without automatically becoming an accused. “Would the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of such a judge include adverse comments just because an FIR is registered regarding the record room?” the court inquired.
Justice Bagchi noted that such actions could cast a shadow on the officer’s reputation. The court will determine if the CBI’s interest in questioning Nath justifies withholding his integrity certificate.
Solicitor General Defends State’s Actions
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta briefed the court that the CBI’s investigation is ongoing and emphasized that Nath’s performance appraisals did not reflect any criminal allegations. Mehta explained that the state government took a cautious approach by reviewing integrity certificates for all eligible officers, not just Nath, after the CBI’s request.
Mehta also stated that the state had begun the DGP selection process six months prior to the retirement of the previous DGP and felt obligated to inform the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) once they became aware of the CBI’s interest.
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy’s Rebuttal
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, representing Nath, argued that a year-long investigation without accusations or complaints against Nath should not cloud his integrity. “The only thing against Mr. Susanta Kumar Nath is the CBI letter saying he ‘may be required to be examined’. Not one of the FIRs mentions my client,” Nundy asserted.
More Read
The court will review whether the state was required to disclose ongoing investigations to the UPSC during the selection process.
Allegations of Manipulating DGP Selection Process
Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, representing the petitioner challenging the selection process, accused the state of creating two temporary ex-cadre posts to manipulate the selection zone for DGP appointments, violating IPS Pay Rules.
Solicitor General Mehta countered that smaller states have fewer sanctioned posts, necessitating more names in the selection pool. He clarified that the ex-cadre positions were necessary due to upcoming retirements and the need to fill vacancies.
The bench has adjourned the matter for further discussion next week, allowing Mehta time to address queries regarding the ex-cadre posts.
