हिंदी खबर
Representative image
Representative image

Delhi HC refuses to stay 1986 batch IPS Verma's dismissal

ANI | Updated: Sep 27, 2022 05:48 IST


New Delhi [India], September 27 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to stay 1986 batch IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma's dismissal from service.
Verma was dismissed from the service on August 30, 2022, a month before his retirement.
However, the High Court has granted the Centre eight weeks time to file a reply on the petition moved by Verma against his dismissal.
Verma is an officer who assisted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the investigation of the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case. He was dismissed by the Home Ministry.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela said, "We are not inclined to stay or interdict the order of dismissal order of August 30, 2022, at this stage."
The High Court in an order passed on Monday said, "It is not in dispute that Verma had given an interview to a news channel pertaining to the aspects which were not within the sphere of his duties at the time when the interview was given."
One of the grounds for Verma's dismissal included talking to the media which dented the country's relations with neighbouring countries.
However, on his behalf, Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Batra submitted that the interview was given under 'compelling circumstances'.
The Court after noting that the interview pertained to aspects which were sub-judice, the Court refused to stay Verma's dismissal order.
The bench said, "We are of the view that at this stage the order of termination of August 30, 2022, does not warrant any interference as the petitioner is to superannuate, in any event, on September 30, 2022. Consequently, we are not inclined to stay or inter or interdict the order of dismissal at this stage."

Earlier, Verma had approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court order allowing the Centre to implement the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary committee on August 30, 2022.
The Supreme Court on September 19 had stayed for a week the dismissal order and granted liberty to the High Court to consider whether to continue with the stay or not.
The Delhi High Court on August 30 had stayed the proceedings against him. The central government had challenged the order. The centre had sought a modification of the said order.
After hearing the application the high court had allowed it with some conditions on September 7, 2022. On the other Verma had sought a stay on his dismissal order.
The division bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela had said, " In that view of the matter, without prejudice to the challenge to the charge sheet in the subject proceedings, respondents (Centre) are permitted to implement the order."
However, it is directed that the order shall not be implemented till September 19, 2022, to enable the petitioner (Satish Chandra Verma) to avail of his remedies in accordance with against the order of dismissal.
The High Court noticed that on September 22, 2021, the court had directed that the respondents could proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, however, they would not take precipitative steps, in the meantime.
This order was continued from time to time till August 30, 2022 when the direction was modified on the statement made by the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings has been concluded and the competent authority to pass a final order.
The respondents were permitted to pass a final order, however, it was directed that till the next date of hearing, the final order if prejudicial to the petitioner shall not be implemented without the leave of the court.
It was submitted by the senior counsel for the respondent that on August 30, 2022, the order of dismissal has been passed. He submitted petitioner is to otherwise retire on attaining the age of retirement on September 30, 2022.
It was prayed that the order be permitted to be implemented as the disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal from service and continuance of the petitioner is service, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this court, is likely to prejudice the respondents as well as have an impact on the administrative orders and decisions taken by the petitioner, in the meantime. (ANI)

Loading...
iocl
iocl