The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions which were filed by the former IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma who has challenged his dismissal from service a month before he was due to demit the office.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva have passed the order after having reserved it on March 1, 2023.
Satish Verma had assisted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case.
It was basically on the report by IPS Verma that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the matter had concluded that the encounter was fake.
The Court on September 26, 2022 had refused interim relief to Verma holding that at that stage, the order of termination did not warrant any interference as Verma was to superannuate on September 30.
The court said that it was not thinking of interdicting the order of dismissal dated 30.08.2022 at this stage…
The Court that in case petitioner is successful in the writ petition, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of his superannuation in accordance with rules.
The order was challenged in the Supreme Court where they refused to stay the order and instructed the High Court to dispose of the case within three months.
The matter arises out of a departmental action initiated against Verma in 2016 for giving an interview to a TV channel. He was Chief Vigilance Officer of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation in Shillong at the time.
It is Verma’s case that he was only clarifying the accusations made against him by the CBI while probing the Ishrat Jahan case.
The Government had put a argued that Verma’s statements in the interview had the effect of an adverse criticism of encounter and were capable of affecting the relationship of India with the neighbouring country.
He was charged with providing information into investigation in the Ishrat Jahan case and the information about interrogation of a senior officer in connection with the case.
It was further alleged that Verma gave out personal details of officials dealing with the case at the Ministry of Home Affairs and State levels and “in-house procedures in dealing with sensitive case wherein foreign terrorists were involved which has the ramification to personal safety and issues relating to national security.”