No grounds to prevent Punjab IGP Umaranangal from resuming duties: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik 

Chandigarh, July 5
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that there is no ground for not permitting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Param Raj Singh Umaranangal to resume his duties. This assertion came just about five months after multiple orders suspending his services were quashed.

The assertion came on a contempt of court petition filed by Umaranangal against IAS officer Gurkitat Kirpal Singh and another respondent. Taking up his plea, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat asserted: “The record of the case shows that the arguments of the respondents-State have not found favour even with the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground for not permitting the petitioner to join his duties, any more”.

Justice Sehrawat asserted the “default” on the respondents’ part called for a coercive process against them. But counsel for the respondents was seeking “a short accommodation to do the needful”. Fixing the case for hearing on July 15, the Bench clarified further adjournment would not be granted.

The Supreme Court in May had expressed its disinclination to intervene in the matter at that stage, while making it clear that the State of Punjab could give him a posting of its choice. The Bench had asserted: “We only observe that the appellant after reinstating respondent Umaranangal, as per the direction of the high court, would be at liberty to give him any posting of its choice, which shall remain subject to final outcome of this petition”.

Umaranangal was arrayed as an accused in an FIR registered in August 2018, related to Kotkapura police firing following sacrilege incidents. Umaranangal had moved the high court for quashing impugned judgment and order dated February 1, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby his claim for reinstatement was rejected.

Rapping the State for not caring to follow the mandatory course of action, the high court in February quashed the orders before directing the State to allow him to join the services forthwith. “The State cannot pick and choose the rules of their suitability and pass the orders without following the procedure as mentioned in the rules”, the high court had ruled.

Referring to a plethora of judgments, the Bench had also made it clear that the services of a person could not be kept under suspension for an indefinite period in the garb of pending inquiry/investigation in criminal proceedings.