Supreme Court Stays Dismissal Of IPS Officer Who Probed Ishrat Jahan Case

IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma. 

(Photo Courtesy: Youtube/Sreeju Ramakrishnan)

The Supreme Court on Monday, 19 September, kept in abeyance for a week the Centre's order on dismissing Gujarat cadre IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma, who had assisted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the probe of the Ishrat Jahan encounter killing case, from service.

"It is for the High Court to consider the question as to whether order of stay of implementation of order passed by disciplinary authority is to be continued beyond a period of one week," LiveLaw quoted a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy as saying.

Verma was dismissed from service on 30 August, a month before his scheduled retirement on 30 September.

One of the grounds for dismissal includes "talking to the media which dented the country's international relations."

Background

In 2016, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Verma after he spoke to the media denying allegations of torture in the Ishrat Jahan case.

Verma moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court had allowed the home ministry to take action against him in the wake of a departmental inquiry that proved the charges against him, including interacting "with public media" when he was the chief vigilance officer of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, Shillong.

Following this order, the Centre again moved the high court seeking its permission to impose disciplinary action to dismiss Verma from service.

Permitting the Centre to implement the order, a division bench of the high court said, "It is directed that the order shall not be implemented till 19 September 2022 to enable the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law against the order of dismissal."

Subsequently, Verma had approached the apex court. Verma had probed the Ishrat Jahan case between April 2010 and October 2011 and on the basis of his investigation report a Special Investigation Team had held that the encounter was "fake."