Dismissed IPS Satish Verma moves SC against HC order

Satish Chandra Verma, the 1986 batch IPS officer who was dismissed from service by the MHA, has approached the Supreme Court.

New Delhi :Satish Chandra Verma, the 1986 batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer who was dismissed from service by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court order allowing the Centre to implement the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary committee on August 30 this year.

Verma is an officer who assisted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case. Later, he was dismissed on August 30, a month before his retirement. The Centre had sought a modification of the order passed by the Delhi High Court on August 30.The Delhi High Court on August 30 had stayed the proceedings against him. The central government had challenged the order. After hearing the application, the high court had allowed it with some conditions on September 7.

The division bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela said, "In that view of the matter, without prejudice to the challenge to the charge sheet in the subject proceedings, respondents (Centre) are permitted to implement the order." However, it is directed that the order shall not be implemented till September 19, 2022, to enable Verma to avail of his remedies in accordance with the order of dismissal.

The High Court noticed that on September 22 in 2021, it had directed that the respondents could proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, however, they would not take precipitative steps, in the meantime. This order was continued from time to time till August 30 this year when the direction was modified on the statement made by the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings has been concluded and the competent authority had to pass a final order.

The respondents were permitted to pass a final order, however, it was directed that till the next date of hearing, the final order if prejudicial to the petitioner shall not be implemented without the leave of the court.

It was submitted by the senior counsel for the respondent that on August 30, 2022, the order of dismissal has been passed. He submitted petitioner is to otherwise retire on attaining the age of retirement on September 30 in 2022.

It was prayed that the order be permitted to be implemented as the disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal from service and continuance of the petitioner is service, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this court, is likely to prejudice the respondents as well as have an impact on the administrative orders and decisions taken by the petitioner, in the meantime. (ANI)