DGP’s extension: Notice to Punjab

In their petition, Additional Director General of Police Jarnail Singh Chahal, ADGP Sarabjit Singh and ADGP Mehal Singh Bhullar stated that extension in service granted to Dogra was "contrary to law and could not be sustained".

Claiming the taking away of powers to grant extension by an amendment in the 1958 rules, the counsel for the petitioner added that the action was without jurisdiction. The Union of India, the Secretary to the Government of India and the State Department of Home Affairs could not grant extension to an All India Service Officer, he added.

Further claiming the futility of granting an extension to Dogra, the counsel stated that Union of India had earlier acknowledged the availability of officers having requisite experience in the State. Moreover, the action was in violation of the principles of natural justice, he further added.

The CAT, in their judgment delivered on December 26 last year, had concluded that the petitioners may lose their promotion to the DGP’s post if the extension was granted. The Tribunal had also recorded that the petitioners, contenders for the post after the DGP’s retirement, would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case Dogra continued in service, the counsel stated.