Tribunal gives Maharashtra 4 weeks to replace DGP Roy

Wednesday’s order comes in the wake of an application moved by Suprakash Chakravarty, DGP (Commandant General Home Guard and Director, Civil Defence), challenging the selection proceedings relating to the appointment of former Mumbai Police Commissioner A N Roy as DGP in February. Chakravarty, a 1972 batch IPS officer, had challenged Roy’s appointment contending that as per the Supreme Court’s directions the three senior most officers should have been considered for state DGP post, and Roy being junior to Chakravarty (1972), S S Virk (1970) and J D Virkar (1972), should not have been considered. As per the CAT’s order, state erred in not considering S S Virk among the three senior most officers.

Holding that the state was bound to consider the three officers who were senior to Roy for DGP’s post, the Tribunal held: “The whole process of selection and appointment of A N Roy is untenable in law and on facts… Hence a direction is required to the state Government to convene a meeting of review selection process/Departmental Promotion Committee by duly taking into consideration the three senior-most officers, including S S Virk, and take a fresh decision in four weeks.”

Advocate R R Shetty, who appeared for Chakravarty, contended that the authorities have shown total inaction and indifference towards the issue denying him the opportunity to hold a cadre post like DG ACB.

Senior counsel V A Thorat, appearing for Roy, submitted that the appointment of DG is not a promotion as they carry the same status and pay scale. The state Government had contended that it is within its power “to post any officer on any post considering his fitness and suitability”.

“We will have to examine (the CAT order),” said Chitkala Zhutshi, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), adding that it was not possible to say anything without reading the order.

Meanwhile, in another development, the Bombay High Court, which was hearing a plea filed by journalist R R Tripathi challenging Roy’s appointment, dismissed it, holding that it was not a subject fit for a PIL.