M A I N   N E W S

Charge-sheeted cop on extension makes it to IPS
Maneesh Chhibber
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 22
Superintendent of Police Sukhmohinder Singh’s case is unique, even by Punjab Government standards.

Last year, almost three weeks after he retired, the Punjab Government brought him back into service, gave him extension for one year and has, finally, when his extended tenure was about to end, inducted him into the IPS, thereby giving him one more year in service.

Incidentally, Mr Sukhmohinder Singh is one of the three police officers against whom a charge-sheet has been filed in the Special CBI court at Ambala in the case of mysterious disappearance of three Ludhiana-based brothers.

Punjab IGP Sumedh Singh Saini is also an accused in the same case, which was investigated by the CBI. Mr Saini, Mr Sukhmohinder Singh and another policeman are alleged to have had a hand in the sudden disappearance of the brothers, owners of Saini Motors, Ludhiana, with whom Mr Saini allegedly had a family dispute. Neither the brothers nor their bodies have been found so far.

Mr Sukhmohinder Singh retired on September 30, 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. The then Additional Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab, Mr R.L. Mehta, issued a notification dated September 30, 2004 to announce his superannuation.

Thereafter, 25 days later to be precise, the Principal Secretary, Home, Punjab, Mr A.K. Dubey, issued an order, reportedly with the approval of the Governor, allowing Mr Sukhmohinder Singh to continue in service for one more year. This order also said that the extension in service would be subject to the ex-post facto approval of the Council of Ministers.

Some days later, on June 30, 2004, Mr Dubey issued another order, this time saying that the Governor of Punjab was “pleased to grant ex-post facto approval for the extension in service to Sh Sukhmohinder Singh.” The officer was posted as Deputy Director General, PRS, PPA, Phillaur.

By the same order, the retirement order of Mr Sukhmohinder was also withdrawn.

Legal experts say the extension was in clear violation of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which says that a government employee who attains the age of retirement on attaining the age of 58 years must not be retained in service except in exceptional circumstances. The clause also says that the sanction of the competent authority must be taken in such case and the authority must grant sanction only on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing.

But the government was still not done with grant of largesse to the officer.

On September 27 this year, just three days before Mr Sukhmohinder’s extended term was to end, the Punjab Government wrote to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), informing it about the decision to induct him into the IPS. Through the same order, the government said that the recommendation in this regard must be treated as unconditional.

On September 30, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a formal notification appointing Mr Sukhmohinder to the IPS on probation and allocated him the Punjab cadre till further orders. This order resulted in one more year in service for the officer.

Interestingly, the same order also says that the appointment “shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the criminal case no 2 (s)/94 registered against Sh Sukhmohinder Singh by the Government of Punjab under section 120-B, 342/365 IPC”.

When contacted, a Punjab Home Department officer said there was nothing wrong in the case. “The officer had been cleared for promotion but his case had not been finalised due to case against him. It was only after the court ruled that he could not be denied promotion as no charges had been framed against him so far, that the government decided to issues the order,” the officer, who did not wish to be quoted, said.