HC pulls up Maharashtra for ‘favouring blue-eyed officer’ DGP Sanjay Pandey

The bench said, “We would express that a decision must be taken (on UPSC recommendation). Either yes or no. Whatever might be the outcome, we will decide accordingly on the next date of hearing on February 21. If need arises, we will deliver the judgment.”

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik concluded hearing a PIL where petitioners’ counsel, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, alleged “inordinate delay” by the state government in appointing a full-time DGP based on a list of three officers recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Pandey’s name did not figure in the list.

Earlier, the referral board of the state government had in April 2019 rejected Pandey’s representation of August 2012 to upgrade his ACR. However, after two years, in September 2021, the state government referral board upgraded his grading for the period 2011-12 to “8”.

Last year, on November 8, then state Chief Secretary (CS) Sitaram Kunte, who was part of the committee which met on November 1, 2021, stated that the panel had “erred” in its decision and requested the UPSC to reconvene the meeting of the selection panel.

On the same day, the referral board decided that Pandey’s overall grading for 2012-13 and 2019-20 should be upgraded. It also expunged “adverse” remarks in Pandey’s 2012 report, which suggested “he needs to be less brash and controlled in his behaviour towards colleagues and superiors.”

On January 27, the UPSC responded to the state government’s letter of December 2, 2021, which had sought review of the decision. The commission said the state government is required to appoint one of the three names recommended.

The bench, after perusing records of the referral board meetings submitted by the state government, remarked: “We find from records that respondent Sanjay Pandey (acting DGP) happens to be a blue-eyed officer of state government. Once he is appointed as DGP, he will not be in position to discharge duty as per the Supreme
Court ruling in Prakash Singh case.”

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Pandey submitted that on November 1, the committee was aware that all his ACRs were 7 or above, which fall under “very good” category, and therefore, the panel’s decision was not as per “established norms of ratings of ACRs” as per DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) rules.

CJ Datta observed, “The State government has gone out of its way to upgrade his gradings (ACR). Therefore, such an officer should never be considered for the post of DGP. Do you think such an officer should be appointed as DGP as per fundamental principle of Prakash Singh case (which stipulates ensuring the police could do their work without worrying about any political interference)? Once he (Pandey) is appointed as state DGP, there will be a relationship of give and take.”

The bench added, “Why did you (Pandey) not make representation (to the referral board) earlier and made it only after two years? Why did you wait for Subodh Jaiswal (former DGP) to relinquish duty? You knew very well that you will have a chance only after that (After Jaiswal relinquishes duty). We have put the state government on guard/notice, otherwise the state will face consequences. There has to be a limit.”

Seervai responded that the state was not acting on Pandey’s behalf and that his client is not a “blue-eyed” officer but instead someone who has suffered because of “injustice, in appointments and promotions for at least 15 years, irrespective of whoever was in power”.