SC questions TN govt over appointment of acting DGP, directs UPSC to recommend names for regular post

NEW DELHI: Questioning the Tamil Nadu government over the appointment of an acting DGP instead of a regular DGP, the SC on Monday directed the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission)to expeditiously recommend names for making a regular appointment. A three-judge bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar,directed the TN State government to immediately proceed with the appointment of a regular DGP once the recommendations from the UPSC are received. Why do you have an acting DGP? the top court asked after hearing the plea. The top court's direction came after hearing a contempt petition filedby a lawyer from Madurai High Court, Henry Tiphagne,against the Government of Tamil Nadu for violating the Prakash Singh guidelines and appointing an in-charge DGP. The petitioner soughta contempt action against Tamil Nadu for appointing G Venkatraman as the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police on August 31. During the hearing on Monday, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for TN, argued that the delay was caused by litigation initiated by one of the IPS officers. The officer had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking inclusion of his name in the panel for consideration. After his plea was dismissed by the Tribunal and his review was rejected on April 30, he approached the Supreme Court. His petition before the top court was dismissed on August 22, paving the way for the appointment process to resume. After being heard these submissions from Rohatgi, the top court requested the UPSC to finalise its recommendations quickly and recorded that the State must act on them without delay. It is to be noted that in 2018, the top court passed the ruling in the Prakash Singh VS Union of India case, where it laid down certain guidelines in connection with the regular appointments of DGPs in a state. It had in the verdict directed all States to forward proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent. The top court, after hearing Tiphagne's plea, stressed thatstrict adherence to the directions must be followed as ordered by this court in the Prakash Singh case verdict. The UPSC is required to prepare a panel of officers for the post, and the States were to choose from that list, the top court said. It clarified that the concept of an 'acting DGP' was impermissible, and that appointments should ensure stability of tenure -- consistent with merit and seniority. Tiphagne in his plea said that the top court therein had issued several direction by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the appointment process of DGPs. It is therein directed the states to select from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, good record and range of experience for heading the police force. Once he has been selected, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation, the contempt petition ofTiphagnesaid. He further added in his plea that the State of Tamil Nadu having the anticipation of the vacancy to arise on August 31, the superannuation of the incumbent DGP, Venkataraman, IPS, the state had not sent proposal 3 months in advance to the UPSC for empanelment as per the directions of this Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh's case. The State, having failed in its duty to comply with the order has appointed ad hoc / incharge post, Tiphagne pointed out.