Chandigarh, April 3
After getting relief from Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, former Punjab DGP S.S. Virk has now a reason to smile, with the local tribunal also pronouncing orders in his favour.
Quashing the suspension orders of the Punjab government, the CAT stated: “The DGP is an officer with the Maharashtra government and the Punjab government has no power to suspend him.”
Commenting on the suspension of the DGP, the tribunal, headed by vice-chairman L.M. Goyal and member Shyama Dogra, said: “Here we would observe that it is really unfortunate for the nation that politicisation of the police force has reached a stage where an officer, who is of the rank of DGP, has been arrested like an ordinary criminal and that too after he had been sent to his parent state and had joined there. The manner in which arrest was made leaves much to be desired. The observations made by Justice H.S. Bhalla of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in his judgement on January 17, 2008, while dealing with the transfer of case to the CBI or any other investigating agency outside the control of Punjab, can’t be ignored.”
In November 2007 Virk had filed an application before the tribunal challenging his suspension.
In his application, Virk had challenged a memorandum ‘whereby the articles of charges were served upon him’. He also challenged the failure of the Union of India to decide statutory administrative appeals filed by him on April 18 and May 25. He had sought directions for declaring that the order of suspension no longer subsists.
The former DGP was placed under suspension during the period when the government of India was considering his case for the termination of his state-to-state deputation.
The tribunal held: “The return of the applicant to the state of Maharashtra under orders of the Union of India and also joining of the applicant in his parent cadre under the state of Maharashtra is held valid and justified. The order of suspension dated April 4, 2007, is quashed and set aside even though it also stands lapsed because the same has not been validly extended beyond 180 days as required under the rules.”
