Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Gujarat IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma who assisted in the Ishrat Jahan probe suffered a setback on Wednesday as SC confirmed Delhi HC’s order of refusing to stay his dismissal from service.
Noting that the order passed by the Delhi HC was interim, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy however advanced the hearing by asking the HC to consider Verma’s plea challenging the dismissal order on November 22, 2022. The bench also asked the Delhi HC to preferably dispose of the same within three weeks.
“Having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the high court refusing to extend the order of stay of disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct that the WP 10539 of 2021 shall stand listed before the HC on 22nd November. Pleadings are to be completed by the parties well before 22/11/2022. To dispose of the matter as early as possible within a period of three months,” the bench said in its order.
The HC while refusing to grant him the relief had posted his plea for January 24, 2023.
The bench during the hearing also noted that another person named Dr Maheshwar Dayal, IPS, IG, CoBRA Sector had been appointed in lieu of the vacancy created by Verma’s dismissal.
Assailing HC’s order, counsel for Verma contended that the HC refused to extend his stay against dismissal after perusing the contents of the transcript of the interview given by the officer to a reporter of a news channel.
“The sole basis of not granting stay is one transcript and that is downloaded from YouTube download and CD is made and transcript is made. That is their sole evidence. It all boils down to one CD which is not proved and the HC while not granting stay is relying on one CD,” Verma’s counsel added.
Stressing on the fact that Verma had been in service for 36 years and would superannuate on September 30, his counsel urged the bench to stay his dismissal until the date of retirement.
“If you’re indeed entitled to your day in court, you’ll get it. We get it you have to go though this but if you are right then truth will stand by you. That’s how it works. We understand the point. We’ll advance it and we can modify the order and say that the case be decided as early as possible and we’ll say preferably within a period of 2 months or so,” Justice Joseph remarked.
NEW DELHI: Gujarat IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma who assisted in the Ishrat Jahan probe suffered a setback on Wednesday as SC confirmed Delhi HC’s order of refusing to stay his dismissal from service.
Noting that the order passed by the Delhi HC was interim, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy however advanced the hearing by asking the HC to consider Verma’s plea challenging the dismissal order on November 22, 2022. The bench also asked the Delhi HC to preferably dispose of the same within three weeks.
“Having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the high court refusing to extend the order of stay of disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct that the WP 10539 of 2021 shall stand listed before the HC on 22nd November. Pleadings are to be completed by the parties well before 22/11/2022. To dispose of the matter as early as possible within a period of three months,” the bench said in its order.
The HC while refusing to grant him the relief had posted his plea for January 24, 2023.
The bench during the hearing also noted that another person named Dr Maheshwar Dayal, IPS, IG, CoBRA Sector had been appointed in lieu of the vacancy created by Verma’s dismissal.
Assailing HC’s order, counsel for Verma contended that the HC refused to extend his stay against dismissal after perusing the contents of the transcript of the interview given by the officer to a reporter of a news channel.
“The sole basis of not granting stay is one transcript and that is downloaded from YouTube download and CD is made and transcript is made. That is their sole evidence. It all boils down to one CD which is not proved and the HC while not granting stay is relying on one CD,” Verma’s counsel added.
Stressing on the fact that Verma had been in service for 36 years and would superannuate on September 30, his counsel urged the bench to stay his dismissal until the date of retirement.
“If you’re indeed entitled to your day in court, you’ll get it. We get it you have to go though this but if you are right then truth will stand by you. That’s how it works. We understand the point. We’ll advance it and we can modify the order and say that the case be decided as early as possible and we’ll say preferably within a period of 2 months or so,” Justice Joseph remarked.
