The Supreme Court today agreed to examine decisions of the Gujarat government to re-induct two superannuated police officers, N K Amin and T A Barot, who were accused in encounter cases.
Amin, who retired in August last year as Superintendent of Police (SP), has been re-appointed as SP of Mahisagar district of Gujarat on contractual basis for one year. He faced trial in the Sohrabuddin and Ishrat Jahan fake encounter killing cases, the plea alleged.
Amin has been acquitted in the Sohrabuddin case.
Barot has been re-inducted in October last year as Deputy Superintendent of Police with Western Railways at Vadodara for one year after his retirement. He was accused in the Ishrat Jahan and the Sadiq Jamal encounter cases, it said.
“Issue notice returnable in two weeks,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said after finding prima-facie merit in the plea of former IPS officer Rahul Sharma against re-induction of the two officers.
The court however, clarified that its notice was conditional and would come into effect only when the defects in the petition are cured by the petitioner.
The ex-IPS officer, in his plea filed through advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma, has referred to the apex court’s order allowing the Gujarat government to accept the offer of state’s top cop P P Pandey to relinquish posts of director general and inspector general of police.
Sharma has challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision dismissing his plea against re-induction of the two officers.
The plea alleged that Amin had been charge-sheeted by CBI in the two encounter cases and has already spent “close to eight years in judicial custody” and was immediately re-instated as the SP after getting released.
“Moreover, Tarun Barot is also a charge-sheeted accused in two different cases of abduction and murder of various persons. He too was arrested in the afore mentioned cases and spent close to 3 years in judicial custody.
“The respondent state has preferred to re-appoint Barot immediately after his release as DySP, (Head Quarters), Western Railways at Vadodara,” it said.
Appointments have been made despite “bearing in mind the questionable track record of the two officers” and these are in violation of guidelines of the Supreme Court and in violation of “the doctrine of public trust”, the plea said.
“In fact, the said appointments are even de hors to the circulars referred to by the respondent state itself as these circulars prescribe that re-appointments/extensions shall be preferred only in cases where the officer being preferred for re-appointment/extension has outstanding merit and in cases where no suitable replacement is found for the seat being vacated provided that the state establishes that it has carried out the exercise to find a suitable replacement,” the plea said.