In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court on Tuesday held the disciplinary proceedings, initiated by the State Government in November 2015 against IPS officer Satish Kumar Gajbhiye for alleged violation of All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968, as “void ab initio” and directed the Government to allow him all promotions and benefits appurtenant thereto retrospectively within a month.
Gajbhiye, while serving as SP of Malkangiri in 2007 had allegedly not disbursed the reward money among police personnel of the district, who arrested a hardcore Maoist, Sriramulu Srinivas. The Andhra Pradesh Government had announced a bounty of ? 5 lakh on the Maoist, which was later enhanced to ? 12 lakh. The Odisha Government received the money from Andhra Pradesh, but Gajbhiye was provided with only ? 3.55 lakh to be disbursed among the police and civilian informers, who were instrumental in the arrest of the Maoist.
Basing on the complaints of non-receipt of the money by three policemen, proceeding was initiated against Gajbhiye in November 2015, just three months after he was suspended for brutally assaulting innocent people of Kendrapada district, who were protesting against the nefarious activities of self-styled godman Sarathi Baba. Gajbhiye also faced severe flak for allegedly being involved in dubious land deals.
Challenging his suspension and the order of disciplinary proceedings, Gajbhiye had approached the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in two separate appeals. Subsequently, the appeal against disciplinary proceedings was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) Principal Branch at New Delhi, which was dismissed in August 2018. He then approached the High Court challenging the CAT dismissal order in a writ petition.
Completing the hearing on the petition last month, a Division Bench comprising Justices Kumari Sanju Panda and SK Panigrahi quashed the disciplinary proceeding against Gajbhiye observing, “A proceeding, which is not initiated in lawful manner sans the avowed principle of natural justice, cannot be just proceeding and is void ab initio.”