Feb 8, 1999
|
|
|
|
KARNATAKA Clash of Ranks A senior police officer battles the government over the DGP's post. By Stephen David In his long and chequered career Chingleput Dinakar, Karnataka's seniormost IPS officer, has crossed swords with many influential persons. So, when the state Government appointed an officer a year junior to him to supersede him as the state DGP, his reaction was not unexpected. He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and then the Karnataka High Court, charging the state Government and Chief Minister J.H. Patel in particular with vendetta. With the case now in the Supreme Court, Dinakar's career is on hold till the hearing next month. On March 6, 1997, the Government appointed T. Srinivasalu, a 1964 batch IPS officer, as the DGP of Karnataka, ignoring the senior officer's claim to the post. Dinakar was transferred as the head of the Home Guards and Civil Defence Department. Though Dinakar's current post is of the rank of a dg, its responsibilities and status are inferior to that of an IGP. In his complaint to the CAT, Dinakar said that both seniority and merit should have been considered while deciding on the post.
The state Government then moved a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. In it, the Government submitted that the chief minister had the power to decide the appointment of DGP. It also claimed that there was no post of the state police chief; instead there are four posts of dgs and Dinakar was one of them. Dinakar has trained his guns on the chief minister. He says that he has been denied the DGP's post because of his investigation into certain cases, including a 1995 scam involving Patel, then the state's power minister. He claims that his adverse report against Patel had infuriated the chief minister. In a statement of objections to the SLP filed last month, Dinakar said that Patel had "recorded a false note in the file" stating that Srinivasalu had five outstanding grades and "thereby wilfully misled the CAT to believe that Srinivasalu is more meritorious." He claims that the chief minister purposely ignored his seniority. Asked about Dinakar's charges, Patel said, "I don't know anything about it. We have done everything according to the rules." In his reply to the high court too Patel had denied Dinakar's allegations of malafide intention. Srinivasalu, the target of Dinakar's ire, claims to be higher on merit as he got both the meritorious service and the distinguished service medals several years before his challenger got. Dinakar's reaction is rather low key. "I want justice to prevail. It is not that I am hankering after any top post," he says, refusing to elaborate. "If I do, then that will be held against me and I will be prosecuted by this vindictive Government." If his statement of objections is upheld by the apex court on February 9 when it hears the SLP, the maverick policeman could go through the last two years of his career with a flourish. Else it'll be back to pushing files at the Home Guards and Civil Defence department. |
|
Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY © Living Media India Ltd |
 |
 |
When CAT dismissed his complaint, Dinakar appealed
to the high court which ruled in his favour in October 1998. Setting aside the CAT order,
the court directed the Government to reverse its decision. Dinakar had told the court that
both he and Srinivasalu were equal on merit -- both having three "outstanding"
and two "good" grades and an equal number of service medals. The Government
justified its action, saying the chief minister had noted in a file in1997 that
Srinivasalu had five outstanding grades. The high court order, however, disputed this
claim and said that when merit is equal, seniority must prevail. 
