Narendra Modi is party respondent in cop’s plea

IPS officer Rahul Sharma has made chief minister Narendra Modi as the party respondent in his petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the charge-sheet filed against him by the state
government.

A bench consisting of MK Gupta and Ashok Kumar asked counsels for Sharma to furnish grounds and documents showing how the chief minister acted with malice against the DIG-cadre officer. Further hearing was posted to September 22.

Mukul Sinha and KG Pillai, counsels for Sharma, submitted before the CAT that the entire inquiry initiated against him had arisen out of the proceedings at Nanavati-Mehta Commission in respect of the CDs produced and the statements made by Sharma. Such an inquiry is barred by Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the counsels said.  

The counsels submitted that the state had been objecting to the admissibility of the mobile phone call records (as contained in the CDs) as evidence. The CDs also paved the way to file an application seeking to summon chief minister Narendra Modi and others by the Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), which is representing the riot victims.

Acting upon the CDs, the commission had directed three personal assistants of chief minister Modi to file their respective affidavits to disclose their telephone talks with other persons.

It was submitted that the applicant had invited the wrath of the CM and other members of the ruling party since the mobile phone call records submitted by him had become the basis for the proceedings before the commission.

Apart from this fact, the applicant was also called by amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, who had been ordered by the Supreme Court to make inquiries with respect to the petition by Jakia Jafri.

The counsels submitted that Sharma went to meet Ramachandaran only after getting permission from the DGP, so he had done nothing beyond the call of his duty.

“It is, therefore, submitted that the charge-sheet that immediately followed the meeting of the applicant with the amicus curiae was not a bona fide exercise of disciplinary powers but by way of pre-determined victimisation amounting to mala fide exercise of powers.”

Sharma also submitted in his plea that, the government has caused delay in initiating action against him. “The delay has caused irreversible damage to the defence since it is the case of the applicant that he had returned the CDs to PP Pandey before he (Sharma) had left for Vav, Surat, in July 2002. He had sent the CDs through the police messenger of the Control Room.”