KOLKATA 17 DEC: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issues transfer orders to three IPS officers from West Bengal. Mainly, the ones who were responsible for maintaining BJP Chief JP Nadda’s security. This move has created quite a stir within the IPS circle as the state government is reluctant to let them go. Especially, to leave them for the central deputation. In fact, the MHA transferred IG Rajeev Mishra to Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) for five years. Also, DIG Praveen Tripathi has been sent to Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) for five years. And SP Bholanath Pandey has been transferred to the Bureau of Police Research and Development for three years.
According to the IPS transfer rules, the MHA is the cadre controlling authority for the Indian Police Service (IPS). So, the MHA has the power to attach an IPS officer with it. Preferably, in consultation with the concerned state government. Mostly, the state government can express their views. But, it is not mandatory to accept any such observations.
Hence, based on this ground, this leaves the IPS officers with only one option. Precisely, to seek a voluntary retirement service (VRS). Also, two officers cannot apply for an early retirement mainly because one can only apply for it, after 20 years of service.
According to the VRS rules, only Rajeev Mishra IPS officer of 1996 batch can qualify for the same. He has served for 24 years. While the other two officers DIG Praveen Tripathi has served for 16 years and SP Bholanath Pandey has served for nine years.
Senior officials of the state government said that the officers do have an option. Importantly, to give representation to MHA. If the MHA turns down the order, they may approach the Court.
With an attempt to draw some comparison between the situations, here’s a significance example from the past. Earlier in 2001, Jayalalithaa took oath as the Chief Minister on May 13. Then, during the night of June 29-30, Tamil Nadu police’s CB-CID raided former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi’s residence. Later, arrested him together with his DMK colleagues Murasoli Maran and T R Baalu. They were the-then ministers within the NDA authorities of Late leader AB Vajpayee.
Thereafter, it resulted in the removal of Governor Fathima Beevi. Only, because the Centre was not comfortable with her report. Then, Law Minister Arun Jaitley stated that the report “did not reflect the true situation in Tamil Nadu today”. In addition, the Governor had “wholly failed to discharge her constitutional obligations”.
So, three IPS officers were recognised as concerned within the raid. Namely, then Chennai Police Commissioner Ok Muthukaruppan, Joint Commissioner Sebastian George, and Deputy Commissioner Christopher Nelson. So, considered shut to Jayalalithaa, all of them have since retired. Now it was post-retirement that Nelson was appointed as the Member of the State Planning Commission. Later, also became the state Information Commissioner.
Meanwhile, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reacts to the final transfer order of the three IPS officers. She took to Twitter and said that she would not bow down to Centre’s brazen attempt to control the state machinery.
Transfer Rules of Civil Servants: Early Retirement not Easy to Achieve
According to the transfer rules of the civil servants, after a notice of voluntary retirement is given on completion of twenty years’ of qualifying service, it requires an acceptance by the appointing authority. Essentially, if the date of retirement on the notice’s expiry is earlier than the date on which the government servant concerned could have retired, voluntarily, under the existing rules applicable to him. For instance, FR 56 (k), Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules,1972, Article 459 of CSRs or any other similar rule. Though, such acceptances may be generally given in all cases, except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant concerned. Mostly, for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority. Also, having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case. Or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. Further, if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister-in-charge should be obtained in regard to Group `A’ and Group `B’ government servants. Also, acceptance of the Head of the Department in the cases of Group `C’ and Group `D’ Government servants.
Even, when the notice of voluntary retirement is given by a government servant, it requires an acceptance by the appointing authority. Also, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance. And the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice. Unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary. Before, the expiry of the period of notice.
It is worth mentioning that this MHA’s move comes in especially after the alleged lapses in the security of BJP president JP Nadda’s convoy earlier. Especially, during his visit to Diamond Harbour in South 24 Parganas district.