VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Feb 2: IPS Neeraj Sinha will continue to stay as the Director-General of Jharkhand Police till February next year who, however, was set to retire on January 31 this year.
However, his appointment was challenged and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and the next date of hearing is awaited.
A senior official of Jharkhand Police claimed that Sinha would continue to hold the post of DGP as per the ruling given by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh vs others case.
“The Supreme Court ruling mandates that the DGP will be appointed for a period of two years during which he can’t be removed from his post,” the official said.
The 1987 batch IPS Sinha was elevated as DGP on February 11, 2021, by the Hemant Soren-led government. Sinha replaced Vishnu Vardhan Rao whom the government shunted as DGP in-charge barely 11 months after he was picked for this coveted post.
Incidentally, the appointment of the DGPs has been marred by controversies and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
The controversy started when the Hemant Soren government removed 1986 batch IPS Kamal Nayan Choubey from the post of the DGP.
Choubey was removed on March 16, 2020, barely nine months after his appointment on May 31, 2019. In the light of the Supreme Court’s order in the Prakash Singh case, the then Raghubar Das-led BJP-AJSU Party government appointed Choubey for a period of two years in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
However, Choubey’s tenure was pockmarked by incidents raising questions over the law-and-order situation in Jharkhand, but his removal was challenged in the Supreme Court by petitioner Prahlad Narayan Singh.
In the meantime, the Jharkhand government which was understood to have decided to appoint Rao as the permanent DGP requested the UPSC to start the empanelment process. But the UPSC refused to do so till the matter of the removal was pending before the Supreme Court.
Sinha was first appointed as DGP in-charge. Later on, his appointment as the DGP for the period of two years was notified. This notification was challenged and a contempt petition was filed in the Supreme Court by petitioner Rajesh Kumar. The Supreme Court during the hearing had expressed displeasure over the appointment when the matter was pending.
