Today, On 7th May, The Supreme Court encouraged a settlement between officers from the IAS and IPS cadres, emphasizing the importance of harmony and collaboration within administrative services. This directive seeks to address any ongoing disputes or tensions between the two prestigious services, promoting a conducive work environment for effective governance.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, directed IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil to pursue a mutually agreeable resolution instead of persisting with their accusations against each other. Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, who presided over the case, expressed their view that as public officials, both officers should refrain from engaging in such behaviour.
The Court remarked,
“The careers of these young officers will suffer if this conflict persists,”
During the hearing of IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil’s appeal against a Karnataka High Court’s decision to reject her request to dismiss a criminal defamation case filed by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, the Supreme Court stated that if both parties agree to withdraw their allegations, any pending litigation and other related matters would also be resolved. The court previously issued an interim stay on the case on December 15 and instructed the officers not to speak to the media. It also suggested mediation as a means to settle the dispute between them. Furthermore, the court mentioned that if either officer has faced departmental action due to their conflict, it may intervene and request the State to pause any further proceedings against them.
Justice Oka suggested,
“To improve the situation, if both parties agree, we can document in the order that since accusations have been retracted, the State should refrain from initiating actions based on these withdrawn allegations against each other.”
Despite Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Rohini Sindhuri, stating,
“She was not inclined to settle.”
He requested additional time to discuss a potential resolution with her.
Consequently, the court scheduled the matter for the following week. Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared on behalf of D Roopa. The dispute between the two officers arose when, on February 18 of the previous year, Sindhuri discovered that Moudgil had made multiple allegations against her on Facebook.
Among these allegations the claim that Sindhuri had shared her private photos with fellow IAS officers. This led to a public confrontation between the two, which resulted in the State government transferring both officers. Subsequently, on February 21, Sindhuri issued a legal notice to Moudgil, demanding an unconditional apology and Rs. 1 crore in damages for the harm caused to her reputation and mental anguish.
On March 24, a Bengaluru court, hearing the private suit filed by Sindhuri, ordered the initiation of a criminal defamation case against Roopa. In response, Moudgil approached the High Court seeking to have the case quashed.
However, on August 21, the Karnataka High Court rejected her plea. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum of the High Court opined that Moudgil’s statements on social media and in print media warranted a criminal trial. Consequently, Moudgil approached the Supreme Court. On December 13 of the same year, the Supreme Court recommended mediation, taking into account the high ranks of the parties involved.
Read Also: SC Seeks Gujarat Government’s Response on Bail Plea of Retired IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma
The Supreme Court expressed its view that public disputes between officials of such stature would tarnish the administration’s reputation. Justice Oka advised the two officers to refrain from engaging in mud-slinging. The next day, on December 14, the Supreme Court proposed that the IPS officer provide an undertaking to remove all social media posts against Sindhuri and apologize, with the aim of settling the matter.
The bench emphasized that if the officers persisted in their conflict and rejected mediation, it would bring the State administration to a pause. On December 15, after reviewing the affidavit and undertaking submitted by Moudgil, the bench temporarily halted the defamation proceedings as an interim measure.