3 min readAhmedabadJan 12, 2015 07:47 PM IST
First published on: Jan 12, 2015 at 07:47 PM IST
In a set back to IPS officer Satish Verma, the principle bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, on Monday dismissed his application challenging his deputation to Shilong as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) by the central government. On the other hand, the tribunal gave some respite to another IPS officer Rajnish Rai and ordered the central government to give the officer a central post within three months. Both the officers are best known for investigating Ishrat Jahan and Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter cases.
The tribunal dismissed Verma’s petition and set aside allegations such as “biased,” “malafide” among others against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi government, previously in Gujarat as chief minister and now in centre. In his petition Verma has alleged, “During the applicant (Verma)-assisted investigation, statements under section 161 and 164 of CrPC were recorded which disclosed material to suspect that the then Chief Minister (Modi) and then MoS, Home (Amit Shah) may have had prior information of the crime. Applicant believes that the impugned order (posting) has been issued because of the bias carried in the changed form of establishment in the Government of India.”
“The court has dismissed all such allegations leveled in his petition and has ordered the petitioner to continue where he was posted,” said lawyer Manisha Lavkumar who represented the Gujarat government in the tribunal as a special counsel. added that on the petition of Rai the tribunal has not quashed the central government’s decision but has ordered the government to give him a central post.
Rai has also challenged his deputation as CVO in Jharkhand, saying that the decision amounted to “separating a wife from her husband with regard to existing mandatory guidelines of Government of India regarding posting of spouses in the government service at the same time.” Rai’s wife Vatsala Vasudeva is a Gujarat cadre IAS officer.
Rai has said that his wife was under consideration for appointment on central deputation as Director in Prime Minister Office (PMO) back in 2010, but the state government refused to spare her citing short of officers. He has alleged that “perceiving that the state’s bias against her husband was also affecting her, the applicant’s wife in December 2013 requested the state to place her name in central deputation again.” But the government again didn’t allow her to go on central deputation.
Share
