Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1244 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of fifth respondent as the Director General of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu - whether there were sufficient materials to deny appointment to the fifth respondent to the post of Director General of Police -cum- Head of Police Force in the State of Tamil Nadu? Held that:- The Government has constituted the State Vigilance Commission headed by a Vigilance Commissioner. The Vigilance Commissioner has jurisdiction and power in respect of matters to which the executive power of the State extends. The Vigilance Commissioner is an independent authority vested with extensive powers to curb corruption and initiate action against the Government servants/servants of Public Sector Undertaking for acceptance of illegal gratification and matters incidental thereto. The Vigilance Commissioner must act as a watch-dog. The Vigilance Commissioner must be chosen in such a manner that he would be in a position to function independently and without any kind of Government control. The Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police are members of the State Security Commission. Similarly, the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police are the members of the Committee constituted to assess the "threat perception" and to provide security to those who are under threat. The Home Secretary and the Director General of Police are expected to function in a coordinated manner to maintain law and order in the State Since the present enquiry relates to the allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification by high ranking public servants, we are of the view that the State must appoint a Vigilance Commissioner with independent charge. The State was correct in its decision selecting and appointing the fifth respondent as the Director General of Police - the entries made in the records seized from the Gutkha Manufacturer by the Income Tax Department are not sufficient to deny appointment to the fifth respondent as the Head of the Police Force - the case on hand does not warrant transfer of enquiry/investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Petition disposed off.
|