New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from Gujarat government on a plea filed against a High Court order allowing it to initiate a departmental inquiry against former DGP RB Sreekumar.
Sreekumar, who had been critical of the then Narendra Modi government over the 2002 post-Godara riots, has challenged the Gujarat High Court decison.
A bench of justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre, which issued notice on Sreekumar's appeal, did not stay the order of the High Court after Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Gujarat, assured the court that no further steps would taken against the former top cop in the meantime.
Earlier, a division bench of the High Court had allowed the state government's petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had in 2007 set aside the state's chargesheet against Sreekumar in connection with nine charges.
However, the high court later granted six weeks' stay to challenge its order before the apex court and asked Sreekumar to file his reply before Gujarat government by October 20. The departmental inquiry is pending against Sreekumar.
In 2005, the government had started probing charges against Sreekumar including taping conversation of a meeting with government officials, leaking crucial intelligence reports to the media, submitting them to the 2002 riots probe panel and maintaining a diary and making it official.
The charges also include illegally keeping secret IB reports with regard to the 2002 riots.
The Gujarat government had chargesheeted Sreekumar in 2005 over the issue, following which he had moved a plea before the CAT challenging the state's action. The plea was allowed in 2007.
The tribunal had then held that the state's action was illegal and quashed the charge sheet against him. In 2008, the state government had challenged the CAT's order before the high court.
In 2005, Sreekumar had alegedly submitted crucial information regarding the 2002 Gujarat riots before Justice GT Nanavati Commission, following which the state government had begun a departmental inquiry against him.
