KOCHI: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Kochi on Thursday dismissed the petition by former DGP T.P. Senkumar challenging the decision of the state government in removing him from the top cop’s post. A two-member bench of the tribunal comprising judicial member N.K. Balakrishnan and administrative member Padmini Gopinath upheld the submission of the government that it had the power to change the DGP.
The position of a DGP is a crucial post and the state government has the complete power in making appointment to such a position, the tribunal said. The tribunal also quoted verdicts of the Supreme Court in this regard. However, it stated that the salary of Mr Senkumar should not be reduced due to the change in his position.
Mr Senkumar told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram that he will file an appeal against the verdict and added that the verdict was one-sided. Advocate General Sudhakar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the state government, had earlier argued that Mr Senkumar was shifted from the position mainly on account of his failure in taking proper action despite serious flaw on the part of the police in connection with Puttingal temple fire tragedy and probe into the Jisha murder case. Despite serious flaws, the DGP had taken a position in protecting guilty officials.
In Puttingal temple fire tragedy, despite the district collector denying permission for the firework display, the cops permitted the event. Even after the tragedy that cost the lives of more than 100 persons, the DGP tried to protect the official, the state said. Similarly, in the Jisha murder case, the former DGP had failed to bring the incident to the notice of the government even after five days of the event. The government also contended that as the appointment authority of the DGP, the government has the power to shift the person.
Advocate S. Sreekumar, appearing for Mr Senkumar, had contended that the shifting of the former DGP was against the norm that an official of an IPS rank should not be shifted from his position at least for two years. Counsel for Mr Senkumar argued for rescinding the decision for violation of this rule.
