Indian
Express: Mumbai: Saturday, 26 September 2015.
The BJP-led
Maharashtra government, which is close to completing a year in office, has
transferred at least 51 senior IPS officers of the rank of Deputy Inspector
General of Police and above without the recommendation of the Police
Establishment Board (PEB) over the last six months by taking recourse to a
provision in the law which empowers the chief minister and the home minister to
carry out transfers mid-term in exceptional cases and in public interest.
Official
papers obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by The Indian Express
show that Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also heads the home department,
approved these transfers and postings, which also includes the recent shifting
of former Mumbai Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria besides another DG-rank
officer, Satish Mathur, and several senior additional DG-rank officers.
To bring down
political interference in police transfers, the Supreme Court (SC) had earlier
directed states to constitute a Police Establishment Board (PEB), comprising
senior police officers, for dealing with promotions, transfers and
service-related matters of police personnel. State governments were also told
to “give due weightage to the PEB’s recommendations and normally accept these”.
While
permitting the state government to interfere in exceptional cases, the SC had
ruled that the “government will have to record reasons for doing so”. On
February 1, 2014, acting on the SC directive, the previous Congress-NCP
government, which was in office till October 2014, amended the Maharashtra
Police Act constituting the PEBs at various levels.
For IPS
officers, a PEB, chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and
comprising the Director General of Police (DGP), DG (ACB), Mumbai police
commissioner and Additional DG (Establishment) as members, was constituted. On
the spirit of the original amendment in 2014, the Maharashtra Police Act
states: “Transfers and postings are to be made on PEB’s recommendations. They
have to originate from the board before the government acts on it. A transfer
order which is not preceded by such recommendations is void ab initio.”
What the
Fadnavis government has done is to use the clause or a rider that was built-in
in the original amendment. In February 2014, the government through an
ordinance later adopted as a Bill for constitution of the PEBs had introduced a
rider (section 22 (n) (2)), which gave powers to the Maharashtra chief minister
and the home minister for making “mid-term” transfers in “exceptional cases, in
public interest and on account of administrative exigencies”.
Normally, the
tenure of most officers is at least two years. After taking over, the
government quietly introduced another proviso ruling that “in the case of
serious complaints, irregularities, law and order-related questions, the chief
minister is authorised to transfer any cop without any recommendation by the
PEB”.
RTI documents
show that the CM first exercised his powers using this provision on March 16,
when Atulchandra Kulkarni (1990) was posted as the Joint Commissioner of Police
(Crime) due to “administrative exigency” after Sadanand Date (1990) went on
central deputation as Inspector General of the Central Reserve Police Force.
The same day, the chief minister also used these powers to post Param Bir Singh
(1988) as the Thane Police Commissioner “citing law and order-related question”
as incumbent Vijay Kamble (1980) had been promoted to the DG-rank and posted as
DG, Maharashtra State Security Corporation.
On April 13,
the chief minister exercised his powers again for issuing transfer orders of
over 37 IPS officers including 14 additional DGs and 13 Special IG rank
officers using these powers. Official papers show these included transfers of
cops whose normal tenure in a post had been completed and were thus due for a
general transfer. The documents also show that a PEB meeting was convened on
May 12, 2015, for postings of 17 Deputy IGs and Superintendents of Police, who
are at the lower-end of the IPS. Official papers show that barring a few
modifications, again exercised under the powers of the chief minister, most recommendations
were accepted.
K P Bakshi,
Additional Chief Secretary, Home, defended the proviso, saying, “It was a
conscious decision of the government, which was well debated by the Maharashtra
cabinet. Certain reserve powers had to be kept with the civil society to ensure
that the delegation of powers is effectively exercised.”
Although the
objective behind the proviso is missing from the “objects and reasons” portion
of the Bill introduced in this regard in the state legislature which cleared it
in April, Bakshi told The Indian Express that “it was well debated in the
legislature too”. Earlier, when his response was sought, Fadnavis had directed
this correspondent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home.
In November
last year, The Indian Express had reported how the Congress-NCP government, in
the run-up to the 2014 polls in Maharashtra, had modified or rejected one in
four recommendations of the PEB without recording reasons as required.
.JPG)
.JPG)
