The recent turn of events regarding Pradeep Sharma, the so-called encounter specialist from Mumbai, Maharashtra who was previously dismissed from the Maharashtra Police under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, which provides for summary dismissal of any government servant without holding any enquiry and the quashing of the order by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) with full back wages raise quite a few questions. That too when the MAT says in its order that Sharma'a dismissal "lacks bonafide" and is "utterly arbitrary". For one thing, either the then DGP A N Roy was correct or the MAT is on the firmer ground. Though I don't think this is the end of the matter because in all certainty, the Maharashtra Police will take it to the High Court in appeal. Yet the fact that the order of a DGP could not be sustained and could not withstand the very first level of trial speaks very poorly of it. The DGP order says that Sharma is being dismissed summarily (i.e. without the need of any kind of enquiry) because he has links with global terrorists and organized crime syndicates. The MAT finds it lacking bonafide intention and being utterly arbitrary. The two cannot be correct at the same time. Instead they are diametrically opposite. And it is this aspect that needs to be looked into seriously. If the MAT had dismissed the DGP order on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence or some such other technical ground and legal loopholes, ordering it to follow the prescribed procedures before taking the final decision, then the things would have been different. This can often happen in cases where administrative decisions are taken. The pressure of time is often with the Executive to commit some procedural mistakes. Then there is also the lack of legal expertise. But it is not the case here. Here the MAT is out rightly rejecting and quashing the DGP order. Moreover, it is calling the order "utterly arbitrary". It even goes on to call the order malafide, which is almost equivalent to being called malicious. It is this abject rejection of the DGP stand and action that puts the then DGP A N Roy and the establishment in the docks. It gives the inkling of some fishy underhand dealings, based on ulterior motives. It conveys the impression of dishonest intentions. It shows that the concerned person was wrongly and maliciously framed. For what purposes, no one knows? Did he prove to be too much for the department? Was he proving uncomfortable for the powers that be? Were there people in the department and outside who wanted to get rid of him at all costs? Though at the moment, it is this hypothesis that has a upper hand. But there could be a third possibility as well. It is that the action of DGP Roy was justified and taken in the correct perspective, based on solid evidence and genuine facts. But with the change of guard, in the subsequent months something so happened that the department's overall attitude and reaction towards this case got changed. Thus, the department, with some kind of direction from the top, started pursuing the case in such a manner in the Tribunal that its own stand started looking malafide and unjustified. These things often happen within the government where the change of the guards and the change in circumstances often make a villain out of a hero and vice-versa. thus, if such a thing happened in this case also, there it is an even more serious issue. This possibility cannot be ruled out because if the DGP Roy would have taken a decision to dismiss the Inspector, who he very well knew to be high-flying having his own high connections, he might have looked deeply into the file. Unless he was heavily pressurized from some higher echelons or was himself badly motivated for certain dirty reasons, he would never have taken this decision without substantial proof. In such a situation, if the ground suddenly turns into being irrelevant, arbitrary and baseless (even malafide), then it is a matter of concern. This, then points towards a very high level conspiracy and foul play being executed by some very powerful players, may be the global terrorists and international organized crime syndicates as referred to by Roy in his dismissal order. In either case, there is a need to look into the matter with open eyes, so as to scrutinize all the possible aspects. But the most important issue involved with this summary dismissal and its quashing by MAT is that at either of the two stages, something fishy has gone. It would be in the interest of justice and for the police department per se, if the truth in the matter is brought forth.
Dr Nutan Thakur Editor Nutan Satta Pravah Lucknow
