IPS officer did not give phone CDs deliberately: Government

The state government, on Thursday, informed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that it had initiated action against IPS officer Rahul Sharma because he had not submitted two phone data CDs to the police department, despite being part of the probe into riot cases of the city.

The government also clarified that the departmental enquiry against Sharma was not initiated because of his testimony before the Nanavati commission probing the 2002 communal riots.

Earlier, in his petition challenging the government's action, Sharma has stated that the government had initiated the departmental enquiry against him only because he had testified before the Nanavati probe panel.

On Thursday, a bench of CAT was hearing the petition filed by Sharma over the chargesheet issued to him by the state government on August 12, 2011. Sharma has challenged the government action mainly on the ground that the state government had acted against him because he had deposed before the Nanavati commission.

"The charge in particular is regarding the applicant not handing over the CDs as case property to the Supervisory Officer, SS Chudasama, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police (crime) nor to the investigating officers GL Khunti, DA Rathod and KM Vaghela, respectively, of the Naroda police station," says the affidavit filed by home secretary MD Antani.

The government has also alleged that Sharma deliberately did not get the phone data CDs registered as case property, nor did he inform the court of jurisdiction about the seizure of the aforesaid case property. Instead, he kept them with him, the affidavit says.

Antani has further stated that "the second charge against the applicant (Sharma) was that at the time of relinquishing his charge as DCP (control room), he did not hand over the aforesaid property to his successor or the investigating officer of the Naroda Patia police station."

The affidavit further alleges that Sharma had illegally kept the CDs with him and, hence, had "failed to maintain absolute devotion to his duties."

Antani further states in the affidavit: "I beg to point out at this stage with all the clarity at my command that the above-mentioned charges have nothing to do with what, when, how the applicant deposed before the Justice GT Nanavati commission."

The government also informed the CAT bench that it only came to know of the CDs when its advocate appearing before the commission enquired about the leak of the contents of the CDs.

"Under section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, production of CDs by the applicant was not in reply to a question which he was required by the commission to answer. Therefore he cannot claim protection," the government affidavit says.

The next hearing of the case has been posted to January 31, 2012.

Sharma has sought protection from the bench against any departmental action on the ground that he had deposed before a government-appointedenquiry commission.