PIL for ‘permanent’ DGP: Was Sanjay Pandey favoured, Bombay HC asks govt

The court posed the query after it was informed that though Pandey’s name was not considered by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) empanelment committee on November 1 based on his ACR score, on November 8, the government upgraded the score to make him eligible for the “permanent” DGP post.

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Pandey submitted that an upgrade of score was required and to rectify “gross and palpable error” in his ACR and that “the state was not acting on his behalf”. (File)

THE BOMBAY High Court on Wednesday questioned the state government if it was favouring acting DGP Sanjay Pandey, who was given additional charge in April last year, to ensure that he continues in the post by upgrading after nearly ten years his score based on Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of 2012 .

The court posed the query after it was informed that though Pandey’s name was not considered by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) empanelment committee on November 1 based on his ACR score, on November 8, the government upgraded the score to make him eligible for the “permanent” DGP post. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Datta Shrirang Mane, argued through advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, alleging “inordinate delay” by state by not following the SC directions which said the appointment of a permanent DGP be made from a list of three recommended by UPSC.

Pandey’s name did not figure in the list which had Hemant Nagrale (present Mumbai CP), Rajnish Seth, and K Venkatesham’s names.

Story continues below this ad

On Wednesday, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for the state government submitted an affidavit filed by Venkatesh Bhat, joint secretary, state home department, which said that on November 8, 2021, Sitaram Kunte, then state Chief Secretary (CS) had written to the UPSC, stating that the committee had “erred” in considering a score of 7 as “good” instead of “very good” and therefore, its decision was not as per “established norms of ratings of ACRs”.

On the same day, a referral board chaired by then CS decided that Pandey’s overall grading for 2012-13 and 2019-20 should be upgraded to 8 and the “adverse” remarks in his 2012 report be expunged.

The UPSC, on January 27 responded to state’s letter of December 2 which had sought review of the decision, saying the state must appoint one of the three names recommended. The state’s affidavit claimed the UPSC’s response “did not dispute corrections or rectifications in Pandey’s report.”

However, the bench orally remarked, “Can the referral board look into grades given 10 years back and change or upgrade it?…Don’t you think that the state government was not favouring respondent Pandey?… Whether it is permissible in law or rules for an officer to apply for an upgrade after 10 years and unless you (state) show the same, we are not going to accept it (upgrade)… There has to be a limit,
We are putting state government on guard.”

Story continues below this ad

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Pandey submitted that an upgrade of score was required and to rectify “gross and palpable error” in his ACR and that “the state was not acting on his behalf”. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for UPSC said DGP should be selected from the list. There was no question of referral board considering Pandey’s plea again as it had, in April 2019, refused to upgrade his score.

The bench asked Kumbhakoni to provide records of the referral board meetings and posted hearing to Thursday.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram