M A I N   N E W S

Saini’s appointment as Punjab Police chief upheld
Tribune News Service

Case files Sumedh Singh Saini (in pic) is accused of being involved in the abduction and physical liquidation of three persons in 1994 The CBI filed a chargesheet in the case after detailed investigation The charges have already been framed by a Delhi court and Saini is out on bail A criminal revision petition was filed, which is pending before the Delhi High Court

Chandigarh, April 11
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that charges of wrongful confinement, kidnapping and abduction against Punjab Director-General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini do not constitute “moral turpitude” and the orders of his appointment as police chief do not require to be interfered with.

Dismissing a public interest litigation challenging his appointment, a Division Bench also interpreted the Punjab Police Act, 2007, to say that it authorised the state government to transfer a DGP before completion of two-year tenure in case he was convicted in a criminal case or charges were framed against him in a case involving corruption or moral turpitude.

"We would hasten to add that the proviso is only an enabling provision… This provision does not stipulate that in such a case the DGP has to be necessarily transferred, but the discretion is conferred upon the state government to do so if it so wants," the Bench of Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ruled.

The Bench added: In the recent case, the charges against the respondent (Saini) are those of wrongful confinement, kidnapping and abduction and would not constitute moral turpitude.

Saini is accused of being involved in the abduction and physical liquidation of three persons in 1994. After detailed investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet in the case. The charges have already been framed by a Delhi court and Saini is out on bail.

On Saini’s selection, the Bench asserted: "We find from the record that the entire material was placed before the selection committee and pendency of the criminal case was well within the knowledge of the selection committee. Not only was it apprised of the same, this aspect was specifically discussed and deliberated.”

“A similar exercise was undertaken at every stage up to the highest authority. Notwithstanding, the pendency of this criminal case, the appointing authority chose to appoint the respondent as the DGP. Thus, it is not a case where some material was suppressed from the selection committee or the appointing authority or they were kept in the dark about this material.”

The Bench added the alleged incident took place in 1994 and the charges were framed in January 2007 by a Delhi court. A criminal revision petition was filed, which is pending before the Delhi High Court. "Though there is no stay of trial, the allegations of the respondent-state as well as Saini are that the matter is getting delayed because of the conduct and attitude of the complainant. In such circumstances, it was for the competent authority to weigh these considerations on both sides… The government/ competent authority took into account all these factors.”

"We find that there is no fault in the decision-making process; the respondent is legally competent to hold the post; he was found eligible for the same; and that he was ranked most meritorious in competitive merit… it appears difficult for this court to interfere with the decision of the government in appointing him as the DGP.”