Chhattisgarh Government chose not to contest a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruling in favor of 1994-batch IPS officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, following a recommendation from Advocate General Prafull N Bharat. The Hitavada has accessed the copy of this confidential document wherein AG provided a legal opinion to the Government of Chhattisgarh, which was subsequently communicated to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by Secretary (Home) Neelam Namdev Ekka. Notably, the CAT, in its order dated April 30, 2024, set aside Singh’s compulsory retirement, directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. This ruling came after Singh had been subjected to a series of investigations, including several First Information Reports (FIRs) filed between June 29, 2021, and July 28, 2021, accusing him of corruption, sedition, and extortion.

 

The Tribunal found the state government’s actions, including the reopening of an inquiry into Singh’s alleged role in the 2012 suicide of then-Superintendent of Police Rahul Sharma, to be procedurally flawed and lacking in substantive merit. Following the CAT’s ruling, on June 14, 2024, AG Bharat provided a legal opinion to the Government of Chhattisgarh, which was subsequently communicated to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. Bharat advised that filing a writ petition to challenge the CAT order would likely be unsuccessful. The AG analyzing the settled law on compulsory retirement enumerated by the Apex court gave his opinion to not go for appeal in the said case. He noted that the CAT’s decision was grounded in strong legal reasoning, emphasizing the Tribunal’s consideration of the procedural irregularities and the questionable foundation of the FIRs lodged against Singh. AG’s opinion was that further litigation would be futile and could potentially harm the state’s credibility. Despite this, the Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, proceeded to file a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, challenging the CAT’s ruling. However, on August 23, 2024, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition, effectively upholding the CAT’s decision.

 

The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia, echoed the legal assessment provided by the Advocate General, ruling that the state’s actions were unjustified and procedurally unsound. The High Court’s dismissal of the petition stands as a validation of the Advocate General’s legal assessment of the case. His recommendation not to pursue further litigation was significant, as it not only protected the state from engaging in potentially damaging legal battles but also underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the rule of law. The case of Gurjinder Pal Singh has drawn considerable attention, highlighting the intricate balance between legal strategy and administrative action. The confidential communication dated May 28, 2024, between the Chhattisgarh Government and the MHA, incorporating the AG’s legal opinion, is now a key element in this complex scenario, demonstrating how sound legal advice can steer the course of high-stakes cases.

 

“This outcome clearly states the role legal advisors play in guiding government decisions, ensuring that justice is both upheld and perceived to be in line with the law. It also highlights broader concerns about the use of administrative actions like compulsory retirement and the necessity of safeguarding public servants against arbitrary or procedurally flawed decisions. As the legal community contemplates the implications of this case, the focus remains on the Advocate General’s office and its responsibility to provide clear, decisive, and strategically sound legal counsel, which is crucial for maintaining administrative fairness and justice,” opined knowledgeable sources within the state’s legal fraternity.