In W.P. (C) 10486/2021-DEL HC- “Interaction with the media was not in the bonafide discharge of his duties as CVO”, says Delhi HC while dismissing ex-IPS Satish Chandra Verma’s plea challenging his dismissal order
Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva [24-05-2023]

Read Order: SATISH CHANDRA VERMA, IPS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 25, 2023:  The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal order of the former IPS Satish Chandra Verma, who was a member of the SIT constituted to probe the Ishrat Jahan case, on the ground that interaction with the media regarding the encounter was not in the bonafide discharge of his duties and there was absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice in the findings returned by the Inquiry Authority.

“ Further, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to show any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings returned by the Inquiry Authority or the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held.

In this matter, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the Gujarat  High Court for investigating an incident of the year 2004, wherein four persons, including a woman, by name, Ishrat Jahan were killed in a police firing. Petitioner was a member of the SIT which carried out the investigation and submitted its report.

The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) in the year 2014 on central deputation and in 2018. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, with four articles of charge. It was stated that the Petitioner gave an interview to a news channel in the official premises of NEEPCO at Guwahati, without any authority and made certain statements regarding the encounter of a terrorist, by the name, Ishrat Jahan in the State of Gujarat and the statements had the effect of adverse criticism against the State and Central Governments.

It was alleged that  he had recourse to the press (electronic media) for vindication of official acts, which were full of adverse criticism and attack of a defamatory character, to counter the statements of Shri G.K. Pillai, the then, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. The Petitioner was also issued charge memos in the year 2016 & 2018. 

The Petitioner sought quashing of the Departmental Inquiry Report of the Directorate General, ITBP, Ministry of Home Affairs and quashing of order dismissing the petitioner from service.

 Keeping in view the articles of charge, report of the Inquiry Authority, the case records, facts and circumstances of the case and the advice of UPSC, the representation of the Petitioner was rejected and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 7(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969, the penalty of “dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government” was imposed on the Petitioner.

It was the petitioner’s case that the entire proceedings were liable to be quashed as the authorities had acted in a prejudiced manner. They had relied upon unverified YouTube download which wasn’t proved and also relied upon unsubstantiated transcripts.

The Bench was of the opinion that the interaction with the media was not in the bonafide discharge of his duties as CVO NEEPCO and the petitioner also did not specify that the views expressed by him were his own and not that of the Government.

Considering the fact that the comments made by the Petitioner pertained to proceedings which were pending in a court of law, the Bench asserted that the Petitioner was himself relying upon the video footage and the transcript to justify his media interaction.

Reference was also made by the High Court to the judgment of the Top Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Versus A. K. Chopra, wherein it has been held that normally, there should be no interference by the High Court exercising review jurisdiction with the factual findings in a departmental enquiry unless the Court finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable.

It was noted that the Petitioner interacted with the press in respect of issues that were not within the scope of his duties and he did not have any prior permission or authorisation for the interaction. At no point of time the petitioner disputed the contents of either the footage or the transcript.Further, the Petitioner in his written brief to the Inquiry Authority had also relied upon the transcript to justify the interaction. 

He had also not denied that he did speak about the encounter and issues that were not within the sphere of his duties at NEEPCO as CVO, NEEPCO. Comments made by the Petitioner to the media pertained to proceedings which were pending in a court of law.

Noting the fact that the Petitioner had consciously impugned the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority directly before the High Court by amending the pending Writ Petition without availing of the remedy of an appeal to the Appellate Authority and approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Bench dismissed the petition.