The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Odisha government over its decision to withdraw the integrity certificate of senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath, following a communication from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) indicating that he may be required to be questioned in connection with a criminal case relating to the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a plea challenging Nath’s exclusion from consideration for appointment as the Director General of Police (DGP) of Odisha.
The Court specifically questioned whether the State was effectively treating Nath as an accused merely because the CBI had sought to question him.
“Withholding integrity certificate is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?” the Court asked.
The Bench observed that the withdrawal of the integrity certificate could have significant consequences for the officer’s consideration for the DGP post.
The Court illustrated the issue by referring to a hypothetical situation involving a District Judge whose record room was being investigated for alleged misappropriation. The Bench observed that although the judge could be questioned or investigated and could, in an appropriate case, even be made an accused, merely because an FIR had been registered concerning the record room, it would not necessarily follow that an adverse comment should be made in the judge’s APAR resulting in the withholding of an integrity certificate.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such an action could cast “a shadow” over the officer.
The Court said it would examine whether the CBI’s request to question Nath was sufficient justification for withholding his integrity certificate.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Odisha government, informed the Court that the CBI investigation was still underway.
He submitted that Nath’s performance appraisals did not contain any adverse reference concerning the criminal investigation.
According to the State, after receiving the CBI communication, it reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers and subsequently forwarded a revised proposal to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) containing the integrity certificates of ten officers.
The Solicitor General submitted that the State had acted as a matter of “abundant caution and due diligence” and that the review was not confined to Nath alone.
He also stated that the State was required to maintain complete transparency with the UPSC throughout the DGP selection process.
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, opposed the State’s decision and submitted that there was nothing adverse against the IPS officer in his service record.
She argued that Nath had an outstanding record and that there was no complaint against him.
According to the submissions recorded before the Court, the CBI communication only stated that Nath “may be required to be examined”.
Nundy further submitted that Nath was not named as an accused in the FIR, the investigation remained pending and the allegedly leaked question papers had not been recovered.
The Supreme Court also indicated that it would examine whether the State was required to place the case-related material before the UPSC along with the integrity certificate.
Justice Bagchi observed that the Court would consider whether, apart from the integrity certificate, other relevant material, including the case records, was also required to be supplied to the UPSC.
The issue of whether the State could withdraw Nath’s integrity certificate would also be examined.
The Court also considered another aspect of the DGP selection process concerning the creation of two temporary ex-cadre posts.
Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioner challenging the appointment process, alleged that the State had created two ex-cadre posts and promoted officers to those posts with immediate effect, allegedly affecting the zone of consideration for appointment as DGP.
Chidambaram argued that the arrangement was contrary to the IPS Pay Rules and alleged that the creation of the posts would facilitate the eventual absorption of the officers against regular vacancies.
The Solicitor General disputed the contention and explained that smaller States have a lesser sanctioned cadre strength, which affected the number of officers available for consideration.
He also explained the timing of the movement of officers into the relevant pay level and the effect of the temporary posts.
The Solicitor General sought time to respond to the queries raised by the Supreme Court concerning the ex-cadre posts.
The Court accordingly adjourned the matter to next week.
The proceedings therefore remain pending, with the Supreme Court yet to determine whether the withdrawal of Nath’s integrity certificate was justified and whether the State was required to place additional case-related material before the UPSC during the DGP selection process.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy