AHMEDABAD: The Central Administrative Tribunal on Tuesday kept its order reserved over the admissibility of the Gujarat Government's plea questioning the ADGP R. B. Shreekumar approaching it on the issue of his "non-promotion."

The State Government through a miscellaneous application on October 7 last year had challenged Mr. Shreekumar's petition before the CAT alleging "malafide intentions" of the Government and particularly the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, in denying him promotion while at least two of his juniors were allowed to supersede him to higher ranks.

After hearing day-long arguments over the issue by the State Government pleader, B. N. Doctor, and Mr. Shreekumar's advocate, N. H. Seervai, the CAT, consisting of Justice Shankar Prasad and Justice A. S. Sanghvi, kept the order reserved till the next hearing. The date of the next hearing is yet to be fixed.

While the Government pleader maintained that Mr. Shreekumar should have first approached the Central Government, instead of petitioning the CAT, Mr. Seervai questioned the very basis of denying Mr. Shreekumar's promotion.

Quoting previous judgments of various courts and CAT benches, Mr. Seervai argued that denial of promotion to Mr. Shreekumar on the basis of a complaint by "private parties" was against the service rules of the IPS officers and such actions could only cause susceptibility of the police officers to the "whims and fancies" of the private parties.

Mr. Shreekumar was allegedly refused promotion pending investigation into a 19-year-old complaint of harassment by a couple of history-sheeters for taking them under preventive detention when he was the Kutch district police superintendent.

Mr. Seervai also pointed out that the two complainants with criminal background were already in the list of the Kutch police for taking them into preventive custody in case of any communal tension. Their arrests by Mr. Shreekumar was part of his official duties and pointed out that even the State Government in the past had not sanctioned criminal proceedings against the police officer and had defended him in the sessions courts and high courts.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail