‘Minimum 6-month residual period of retirement a must’: Supreme Court
A bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it is likely to tweak its own 2006 judgement on police reforms so that states do not misuse directions given in it.Updated: Mar 01, 2019 19:35 IST
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
The Supreme Court noted on Thursday that a police officer empanelled for the post of Director General of Police (DGP) should have a residual period of retirement of at least six months.
A bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it is likely to tweak its own 2006 judgement on police reforms so that states do not misuse directions given in it. The court had then said the DGP, the highest ranking police officer of a state, must have a fixed two-year tenure irrespective of the retirement age.
“…the residual period before retirement (of the officer to be elevated) should be minimum and for a reasonable time…may be six months or so,” the CJI said while hearing a contempt petition filed by the petitioner Prakash Singh, former director general of police UP. The court after hearing the arguments reserved it’s verdict. In his contempt application Singh alleged that several states have failed to implement the 2006 direction.
The CJI made the remarks while agreeing to the suggestion by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran assisting the court as amicus curiae in the matter. Ramachandran also said that the present practice of appointing as DGP, officers on the last day or just a few days before their retirement must be stopped.
Ramachandran explained that states were taking advantage of the SC’s direction to favour officers of their choice.
Attorney General KK Venugopal admitted that this is happening. He pointed out that in some cases officers are appointed as DGPs on an interim basis and that on the last day of their service, they are made the DGP on a permanent basis, giving them an additional two years of service. Such motivated appointments were causing frustration among other deserving officers who are in the line of succession for elevation as DGP, Venugopal submitted.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Singh said that even some of the earlier directions like empanelment of three most suitable officers by the UPSC from which alone the state has to pick one of them as DGP was being violated by the states.
First Published: Feb 28, 2019 23:19 IST