By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: The sudden move to withdraw the Integrity Certificate of 1993 Batch IPS Sushant Nath after sending the name does not appear fully fair or consistent on the available facts, and it has raised legitimate questions about process and possible underlying motives.
Is it fair? Is something behind it?: Guidelines and judicial norms (DoPT instructions and case law on integrity certificates for All India Services promotions/empanelment) state that an Integrity Certificate should not be withheld ipso facto merely because an inquiry or case is pending. The State Government must examine the nature/gravity of the charges, evidence available, the officer’s overall reputation, views of the department head, etc., and then decide. Sudden withdrawal after the name has already been sent, without the issue having been factored in earlier, looks procedurally abrupt and invites suspicion of selective or last-minute action.
Timing matters. Sending the name implies the state had (or should have had) cleared integrity at that stage. Raising it only at the UPSC meeting creates an appearance of afterthought or pressure, which is why reports questioned why it was not considered earlier
Whether there is “something behind it” political preference among the contenders, administrative friction, or genuine new material cannot be confirmed from public sources alone. Odisha DGP selection has historically involved cadre politics and competing senior officers; last-minute integrity moves have featured in other states’ AIS empanelment disputes and have been challenged successfully when not properly justified.
In short: if a serious, substantiated Vigilance case or charge-sheet exists and was overlooked earlier, the state has a duty to act. If the move is based on incomplete material or is timed to exclude a particular officer, it is vulnerable to challenge as arbitrary.
How could the name have been sent if cases were pending?: No formal charge-sheet , cognisance , departmental charge memo existed at the time of the May list mere preliminary inquiry or complaint does not automatically bar integrity clearance.
The state applied the “examine gravity” test and still cleared him. Administrative oversight or incomplete vigilance inputs at the time of forwarding.The alleged material crystallised or was escalated only later. Until the state places the exact material on record (or a court examines it), the inconsistency remains unexplained publicly.
Legal options open to IPS Nath: Nath can pursue remedies under service jurisprudence:
Representation to the State Government , Chief Secretary seeking reasons for the proposed withdrawal, a copy of the material relied upon, and an opportunity to respond (natural justice principles apply.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) — Principal Bench or Cuttack/Bhubaneswar Circuit — under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Challenge any formal withdrawal of the Integrity Certificate or exclusion from the UPSC panel as arbitrary, violative of DoPT guidelines, and contrary to the requirement that pending inquiries do not automatically justify withholding. CAT has repeatedly directed states to apply the “gravity and evidence” test properly and has interfered where integrity is withheld without due process.
Success depends on the actual strength of the material the state relies on. Courts do not interfere lightly with vigilance processes, but they do scrutinise procedural fairness and the application of the non-automatic-withholding rule.
The sequence name sent → late attempt to withdraw integrity at the UPSC stage is irregular on its face and has already delayed the DGP process. Nath has strong grounds to demand reasons and to approach CAT/High Court if the withdrawal is formalised without proper application of mind. Public reports so far do not disclose a clear, contemporaneous Vigilance charge-sheet that would have made the original inclusion impossible; until that material is tested, the move remains open to the criticism that it is not entirely transparent or even-handed.
Public reporting does not give detailed, confirmed specifics of a fresh Vigilance case against Nath that suddenly emerged after May some coverage links the timing to broader integrity concerns or prison-related issues under his charge, but nothing definitive and publicly adjudicated is detailed in major reports. Nath has a long record, including earlier postings (SP Vigilance among them), central deputation with BSF, proforma promotion to DG rank, and appointment as DG Prisons after repatriation
It may be noted that Odisha sent a list of 11 senior IPS officers (including three DG-rank officers: Sudhanshu Sarangi, R.P. Koche and Susanta/Sushant Kumar Nath) to the UPSC in May 2026 for empanelment for the DGP post (incumbent Y.B. Khurania was due to retire around mid-August 2026). Nath (1993-batch Odisha cadre, then DG Prisons & Correctional Services) was one of the names.
During the UPSC empanelment committee meeting (reported around 8 August 2026), the Odisha side (Chief Secretary Anu Garg is named in one report) indicated that the state wanted to withdraw the Integrity Certificate of one of the three DG-rank officers — specifically linked to Nath in reporting. The UPSC Chairman reportedly did not accept an immediate withdrawal, the meeting remained inconclusive, and the process was deferred. Reports explicitly noted the oddity that the issue was not flagged when the list was originally prepared and forwarded months earlier.
