Aren't you treating him as accused? Supreme Court questions Odisha for excluding IPS officer from DGP selection

The Supreme Court on Thursday quizzed the Odisha government for withdrawing senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath's integrity certificate over Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s request to question him in connection with a criminal case involving the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SI).

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition against Nath's exclusion from the list of officers being considered for appointment as Director General of Police (DGP), due to the communication sent by CBI.

The Court today asked whether State was treating Nath, a former Chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, as an accused in the case by withdrawing his integrity certificate.

"Withholding integrity certificate is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?" it asked.

The Court further said that an inference can be drawn that the government had put the cart before the horse.

In order to highlight the consequences of withdrawal of Nath's integrity certificate, the Court cited the example of a district judge who may be required to be examined in a case of misappropriation in his record room.

"Let us say an investigation commences into misappropriation in the malkhana, in the record room of a judicial establishment. X is the District Judge of that establishment. He can be interrogated for that. He can be investigated for that. In an appropriate case, he can even be named as an accused. But merely because an FIR is registered concerning the record room, will the APAR of the District Judge contain an adverse comment which would result in withholding his integrity certificate?" the Court asked.

Justice Bagchi said that "a shadow may be cast" on the officer by such action. The Court said it would examine whether CBI's response about questioning Nath was sufficient to withhold the integrity certificate.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today informed the Court that the CBI investigation is still underway. He also submitted that Nath's performance appraisals did not mention anything about the criminal investigation.

Mehta added that after the CBI's request, the State government excluded him and forwarded a revised proposal containing integrity certificates in respect of only ten officers for empanelment.

"As a measure of abundant caution and due diligence, the State reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers. It was not done only for one person. Had something been found concerning another officer, that too would have been suitably intimated," Mehta said.

On Wednesday, the Court had asked the State to clarify whether it was aware of CBI's request to question Nath when it included his name in the panel of officers for appointment as DGP.

Mehta said the process was started six months before the earlier DGP was to retire and when the State subsequently came to know about the facts, it would would have been failing in its duty if it had not informed the UPSC.

"The State is required to maintain complete transparency with the UPSC throughout the process for selection of the Director General of Police," he added.

In response, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy representing Nath said his integrity cannot be said to be under cloud after one year of investigation.

"Admittedly, my record is outstanding. There has been no complaint whatsoever against me, not even a whisper. The only thing against Mr Susanta Kumar Nath is the CBI letter saying that he “may be required to be examined”. Not one of the FIRs has a whisper of my name. Certainly not as an accused. I am not an accused in the FIR, the investigation is still ongoing and the leaked question papers were never found," she said.

The Court said it will examine whether the State was required to inform the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) about the case.

"We have to consider whether, along with the integrity certificate, all the other material also has to be produced before the UPSC or not, which includes these case records. Of course, the integrity certificate issue which you have raised, whether it can be withdrawn, we will consider," Justice Bagchi said.

The Court today also considered the State government's decision to create two temporary ex-cadre posts allegedly to alter the zone of consideration for appointing DGP.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, representing the petitioner challenging the appointment process, argued that the State created two ex-cadre posts and got them promoted “with immediate effect” in violation of the rules

"The motive is clear. You create it now and you fill it now, so that they will be seamlessly absorbed against the regular vacancies. This is contrary to the IPS Pay Rules," the senior counsel said.

SG Mehta told the Court that smaller States have a lesser number of sanctioned strength and thus more names of officers were sent.

“The two cadre posts are occupied. So far as the two ex-cadre posts are concerned, one of the incumbents was to retire around August 16 or 17, 2026. So, physically and factually, one of the senior-most officers in Level 15 moved to Level 16 from August. The next officer in Level 15 would occupy Level 16 only with effect from December 1, 2026,” he said.

Mehta today sought time to respond to certain queries raised by the Court with regard to the ex-cadre posts. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to next week.

[Read Live Thread]