Mumbai: CBI director Subodh Jaiswal seeks dismissal of PIL by former ACP challenging his appointment

Jaiswal, who is a former Maharashtra director general of police (DGP), said that Trivedi held a “personal grudge” against him over his postings and also due to a “default report” that he had sent based on which a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the former ACP by the state home department.

Jaiswal was responding to a PIL challenging his appointment on the grounds that he was neither eligible nor had the requisite experience to occupy the post.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik on June 9 issued notice to Jaiswal and Union home department seeking their response to the plea argued through advocates S B Talekar and Madhavi Ayyappan.

The plea filed by Trivedi claimed that Jaiswal’s appointment was in contravention of the Delhi Police Establishment Act and sought direction to call records and proceedings of the committee which cleared his name as a candidate in May 2021.

The plea said that Jaiswal, before being appointed as the CBI director, was never part of any agency which investigated anti-corruption cases. Advocate Talekar pointed out an order of the magistrate court which issued proceedings against Jaiswal on defamation complaint in 2012 and that the same was not placed before the committee which appointed Jaiswal.

Trivedi further referred to observations by the Supreme Court and trial court on Jaiswal’s conduct in the probe of the alleged scam of fake and counterfeit stamp papers, known as the Telgi scam. The plea said that same raised questions over Jaiswal’s integrity and, therefore, pending the hearing on the plea, he should be restrained from officiating as the CBI director.

Jaiswal, in his affidavit, said that while the central government would respond to the factual position on record about his appointment, he was responding to specific allegations made by the petitioner.

Denying Trivedi’s allegations, Jaiswal, who was head of the special investigation team (SIT) which investigated the Telgi scam, said that the competent authority of the CBI had found the SIT had taken “appropriate legal action” in the probe.

Jaiswal said that the present plea was “not an isolated incident of attempting to initiate malicious proceedings” against him but Trivedi has been “on a witch-hunt to malign his reputation” with the “sole intention” of involving him in uncalled-for litigations

He pointed out that Trivedi had previously approached the Maharashtra government and the Bombay High Court challenging his appointment as the Maharashtra DGP.

Jaiswal questioned the maintainability of the plea stating that Trivedi, before his retirement, had a grievance against him about his postings. Trivedi’s subordinate officers had allegedly sent a default report against him to Jaiswal, who after examining the same, sent it across to the government for departmental enquiry against the former ACP, the respondent said. The enquiry was initiated by the government in 2019, he added.

Jaiswal said the PIL was an “abuse of process of law to harass him and tarnish his image and reputation” and to such a petition filed to “to settle grudge or enmity is liable to be dismissed”.

Trivedi filed a rejoinder to Jaiswal’s affidavit and denied having any personal grudge against Jaiswal and stated that “calculated attempt was being made to mislead (the) court by twisting facts.”

The court is likely to hear the plea next on July 28.