3 min readAhmedabadJan 31, 2019 06:00 PM IST
First published on: Jan 31, 2019 at 06:00 PM IST
The state government had earlier denied the 1988-batch officer two increments on the basis of the chargesheet.
In a relief to IPS officer R S Yadav, the Ahmedabad bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the departmental chargesheet against him for not depositing his service revolver on time and instead keeping it in a bank locker.
The tribunal also directed the Gujarat government to quash the chargesheet and extend the benefit of quashment to the officer in two months.
The state government had earlier denied the 1988-batch officer two increments on the basis of the chargesheet.
Yadav had created a controversy in 1999 when as SP of Gandhinagar, he had sought permission to prosecute the then MoS for Home Haren Pandya in connection with the kidnapping of a three-year-old girl.
Days later, he was transferred to Junagadh as vice-principal, Police Training College. After being relieved from the charge of Gandhinagar SP, Yadav didn’t deposit his service revolver and kept it with him. When the state government sought it back, he communicated that he had kept it in a bank locker belonging to his wife’s name. He said that that reason behind keeping the gun back was alleged threat from Pandya.
The government later seized the revolver and the cartridges from the bank locker.
The CAT’s order, passed earlier this month, stated that the state government proceeded against Yadav for his “continuing defiance” of not depositing the revolver on time. According to the order, the record stated that in July 2012, the inquiry officer submitted a report stating that charges were not proved against Yadav. However, the disciplinary authority didn’t agree with the report.
Yadav had also challenged the chargesheet on the ground that the draft of charge was not authorised by the then chief minister as per the provision. This ground was also upheld by the tribunal.
While quashing the chargesheet, K B Suresh, judicial member, and K N Shrivastava, administrative member, of the CAT, held, “…we hold that the charge is not within the realm of legality nor it is commensurate with factual position and is colourable exercise of power.”
The state government had earlier denied the 1988-batch officer two increments on the basis of the chargesheet.
Share
