Bench makes it clear that the appellant had beenDGP for more than two years

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a special leave petition against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the plea of V. Dinesh Reddy, former Director General of Police, beyond September 30 when he retired on the date of superannuation.

A Bench of Justices S.S. Nijjar and Ibrahim Kalifulla, dismissed the SLP after hearing senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, appearing for Mr. Reddy. After the State government rejected Mr. Reddy’s application for extension of his tenure beyond September 30, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the application. The High Court confirmed this order. The present SLP is directed against this judgment dated September 29.

The Bench rejected the contention of Mr. Reddy that he had one more year of service left as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case of 2006. The Bench drew the attention of counsel to the fact that the appellant had been the DGP for more than two years {27 months} and he could not now claim that he should continue beyond the age of superannuation.

HC verdict upheld

When Mr. Andhyarujina argued that the apex court judgment should be followed in letter and spirit, Justice Nijjar asked counsel: “How do you discount the earlier period.” The Bench said: “We have understood the 2006 judgment and you {appellant} have completed two years as DGP.” Counsel said the earlier period till the panelling took place, he was only ad hoc DGP and even then Mr. Reddy was not heading the police force. The Bench, however, refused to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the SLP.

Mr. Reddy in his SLP contended that he should be continued as DGP for two years from September last year, irrespective of his age of superannuation. He said the State government appointed him as DGP on June 30, 2011, without following the empanelment to be made by the Union Public Service Commission.

He was appointed as DGP after the empanelment on September 29, 2012, but the tenure was not specified. As per the law laid down in Prakash Singh’s case, he should have a minimum tenure of two years as DGP irrespective of the date of superannuation and thus he was entitled to continue for two years from September 29, 2012.

He sought quashing the impugned judgment.