The applicant (Totewar) said that provisions under Section 22 C of the Maharashtra Police Act, which talks about the constitution of the Police Establishment Board (PEB) – 1, had not been complied with. (Express photo/Representational) The applicant (Totewar) said that provisions under Section 22 C of the Maharashtra Police Act, which talks about the constitution of the Police Establishment Board (PEB) – 1, had not been complied with. (Express photo/Representational) THE MUMBAI bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in an order last month has noted that the state additional chief secretary (Home) did not take suo motu corrective steps even after realising that prescribed procedures had not been followed while transferring a police officer. The order was dictated by Justice AH Joshi, chairman of the tribunal, while setting aside an order issued earlier this year transferring officer Vilas Totewar from the post of sub-divisional police officer (SDPO) to deputy superintendent of police (DySP) within the Palghar police. As per the order, Totewar, through his advocate B A Bandiwadekar, had approached MAT after he was transferred from SDPO (Vasai) to DySP (headquarters), Palghar police. He challenged the transfer order dated June 8, 2018 on the ground that proper procedure had not been followed. The applicant (Totewar) said that provisions under Section 22 C of the Maharashtra Police Act, which talks about the constitution of the Police Establishment Board (PEB) – 1, had not been complied with. As per the section, PEB-1 should comprise ACS (Home), who is the PEB chairman, in addition to the state DGP, DG of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Commissioner of Police (Mumbai), ADG and IG (Establishment). The section added, “Provided that if none of the aforesaid members is from the backward class, then the state government shall appoint an additional member of the rank of ADG and IG belonging to such class.” The applicant filed a rejoinder where he has averred that the five members who were part of the PEB were all from the open (general) category. Totewar added that to the best of his knowledge, the government had not appointed a member of the backward caste into the PEB in spite of this. “…therefore any such decision taken by the said Board is bad in law, and therefore, the transfer order based thereof is equally liable to be quashed and set aside,” he argued. “After hearing the matter on October 4, the tribunal directed the ACS (Home) to examine the matter, study the objects behind incorporation of Section 22 C of the Maharashtra Police Act and take corrective steps if desired, and if corrective steps are not taken, to file affidavit,” the order read. After an affidavit was filed by ACS (Home) Sunil Porwal, the tribunal on October 20 observed: “It is obvious no corrective steps were taken, affidavit in reply has been filed… He (Porwal) has admitted to the position that the procedure required to be followed as mandated by Section 22 C of Maharashtra Police has not been followed.” Porwal, in his affidavit, said that the proposal would be placed before a reconstituted PEB, of which one member will be from backward class, and fresh order will be issued. Regarding the affidavit, the MAT chairman noted in his order, “By the order of this tribunal dated 4.10. 2018 an opportunity to take corrective steps was afforded… though the tribunal directed the Additional Chief Secretary to study the matter… a statement is made that prescribed procedure has not been followed. This attitude on the part of ACS (home) exhibits the level of respect to the aims and objects which warranted a suo motu corrective step… In fact the PEB 1 is a matter of device or machinery with the ambit and control of the ACS and he ought to have upon reading the original application suo moto taken corrective action. Having failed to do so, ACS ought to have taken corrective steps after he got an opportunity to examine the matter after an eye opening direction from this tribunal.” “It appears that the officers are averse to taking corrective measure at their own level and every time they look forward for corrective action in the form of order from Tribunal or Court. In fact and in law, justice is the duty and obligation of the state, and courts and tribunals are there for undoing unjust acts. Such situation ought not occur nor should it ever recur,” the order added. Porwal, when contacted, said that he was on leave and travelling and had not seen the order. For all the latest Mumbai News, download Indian Express App

Stay updated with all the Mumbai Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.