Police chief appointment dispute: alleged corruption material, UPSC disclosure, and independent vigilance enquiry principles examined.

The article examines a challenge to the appointment of a Director General of Police, with objections based on alleged corruption material, non-forwarding of incriminating documents to the UPSC, and the request for a CBI probe. It notes that the appointment was treated as a fresh appointment under the Prakash Singh tenure guidelines, that the alleged bribery material lacked direct corroboration against the officer concerned, and that uncorroborated allegations did not justify withholding material from the UPSC. It also stresses that the Vigilance Directorate should function independently, with a separate Vigilance Commissioner, to secure an impartial enquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appointment of the fifth respondent as Director General of Police was invalid as a mere extension of service or on account of alleged incriminating materials; (ii) whether non-placement of the alleged materials before the Union Public Service Commission vitiated the empanelment and appointment; (iii) whether the case warranted transfer of the enquiry to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the appointment of the fifth respondent as Director General of Police was invalid as a mere extension of service or on account of alleged incriminating materials?

Analysis: The appointment was made under the statutory regime governing selection of the Head of Police Force and was not treated as an extension of service. The alleged materials from the Income Tax search only showed entries of payment through intermediaries and did not disclose direct, corroborated material establishing receipt of illegal gratification by the fifth respondent. In the absence of supporting evidence, the mere entries could not disqualify him or render the appointment illegal.

Conclusion: The appointment was not invalid on the ground of extension of service or on the basis of the alleged incriminating materials.

Issue (ii): Whether non-placement of the alleged materials before the Union Public Service Commission vitiated the empanelment and appointment?

Analysis: The selection record showed that the Union Public Service Commission assessed the eligible officers on the basis of service record, length of service, good record and range of experience, as required by Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act, 2013. There was no pending case or legally acceptable material establishing misconduct against the fifth respondent at the relevant time, and the intermediary's denial further weakened the allegation. The Court held that there were no prima facie admissible materials that had to be forwarded to the Commission so as to alter the selection outcome.

Conclusion: The non-placement of the alleged materials before the Union Public Service Commission did not vitiate the empanelment or appointment.

Issue (iii): Whether the case warranted transfer of the enquiry to the Central Bureau of Investigation?

Analysis: The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department had already commenced preliminary enquiry and was in seisin of the matter. The Court found no factual basis to presume that a transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation was necessary for a fair enquiry. Instead, the Court directed strengthening of the Vigilance set-up by appointing an independent Vigilance Commissioner and by ensuring an unbiased enquiry under proper supervision.

Conclusion: The matter did not warrant transfer of the enquiry or investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment failed, but directions were issued to secure an independent and fair vigilance enquiry and related follow-up action.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of a sensitive public appointment, interference is unwarranted unless there are cogent, prima facie admissible materials showing disqualification or illegality; uncorroborated entries or allegations do not by themselves vitiate the selection.

---