DGP appointment: Lawyer alleges double standards of Pun govt

Amicus curiae senior lawyer K N Balgopal appointed in a case challenging the appointment of Sumedh Singh Saini as Punjab DGP, informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday about the alleged double standards of the Punjab government while promoting Saini as DGP.

During the resumed hearing of the case, Balgopal submitted that departmental promotion committee did not consider the promotion of Davinder Singh Garcha from the rank of SP to DIG, asserting that he was charge-sheeted in the Moga sex scandal.

In case of Saini, where charges were already framed, the committee

considered him fit for the promotion. Gracha had already filed a petition in the high court, which is still pending.

Balgopal also referred to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the P J Thomas case. The apex court had held that 'institute' was more important than 'individual'.

On October 16, the high court had discarded the petitioner - Voices for Freedom - who had filed the petition against Saini's appointment. The court took suo motu notice of it and appointed two lawyers as amicus curie- Balgopal and Kuldeep Khandalwal.

The case came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. The court was also apprised that the state had also violated the sealed cover procedure as stated in the K V Janakiraman case.

The high court was informed that sealed cover procedure permitted the question of promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry.

The case will now come up for hearing on January 24 for further arguments.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus