Inquiries a vendetta for complaining against Anil Deshmukh: Param Bir Singh to HC

Former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, while making submissions in support his petition before the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday, has alleged that the two preliminary inquiries initiated against him by the state were intended to scuttle the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) probe which was ordered by the HC on April 5

Former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, while making submissions in support his petition before the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday, has alleged that the two preliminary inquiries initiated against him by the state were intended to scuttle the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) probe which was ordered by the HC on April 5.

HT Image

The state opposed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable as the preliminary inquiries initiated by it were under the purview of the Central Service Rules which are decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and added that Singh should have approached the tribunal rather than the HC.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar was informed by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani that the plea challenged the two preliminary inquiries initiated against him. The first probe against Singh is under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules in connection with the Antilia bomb scare case and the second probe is related to the allegations made by inspector Anup Dange, who was suspended last year and has recently been reinstated.

While arguing on behalf of Singh, Jethmalani submitted that both the probes were ordered as a vendetta as he had complained to the chief minister about the corrupt practices ordered by former home minister Anil Deshmukh. He said the probes were ordered hastily and without application of mind. “Instead of inquiring into the complaints by Singh against Deshmukh, the state has punished the whistleblower. They are trying to shoot the messenger,” said Jethmalani.

He added that the inquiries were not merely administrative in nature but also dealt with the criminal aspect of the case, and hence Singh was justified in approaching the HC.

Earlier in May, HC had observed that the reliefs claimed by Singh could be decided by CAT.

Jethmalani then continued that the state had tried to make Singh withdraw his March 20 letter to the chief minister by asking director general of police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey to convince Singh to take back his allegations against Deshmukh. Pandey had been appointed to conduct the preliminary inquiry when he allegedly advised Singh to withdraw the letter as it was futile to fight against the system. Jethmalani said that when Singh did not fall in line and disclosed the conversation between him and Pandey, the DGP recused himself from the inquiry, after which false and concocted cases were initiated against Singh including the one by Dange.

Senior counsel Darius Khambatta for the state, however, opposed the petition and argued that the issues raised by Singh pertained to service matters and he should approach CAT as the issues were covered under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Khambatta further refuted Singh’s claims that the government action was a form of vendetta and that Dange had lodged the complaint against Singh on February 4, much before Singh wrote the letter to the chief minister on March 20. In light of this, Khambatta said the petition was not maintainable and was intended to scuttle the probe initiated by the state against him by claiming that all action by the state against him was mala fide.

“The petition is an abuse of process. Just because the petitioner has made some allegations, he does not get immunity from any of his actions. The allegations in Dange’s complaint are grave; extraordinarily serious offences are made out. None is above law, not even the former Mumbai Police chief,” said Khambatta.

Senior Counsel Navroz Seervai, for DGP Pandey, concurred with Khambatta and said if the court deemed Singh’s petition maintainable, he would file a detailed affidavit with regards to the claims made by Singh against him.

After hearing submissions, the court reserved its order on the issue of maintainability of Singh’s plea, which it will pronounce in due course.

Meanwhile, the bench adjourned till August 5 hearing on Singh’s pleas seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him by the Thane Police under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The state said it would continue its earlier statement of no coercive action, including arrest, against Singh till August 6 in the case under the Atrocities Act.