*Status report on deadwood in adm sought
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Jan 28: State Government today came under severe criticism from the Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur for adopting cold shoulder response towards the repeated pleas of the State Accountability Commission seeking independent investigating agency for carrying out inquiries into the complaints against public servants and adopting dilly-dallying tactics towards creation of requisite staff for the State Vigilance Commission.
Moreover, the DB has also viewed very seriously non-filing of status report vis-à-vis response received by General Administration Department from various Administrative Secretaries regarding identification of inefficient, deadwood and corrupt officers.
The Division Bench has made it clear that in case requisite staff was not sanctioned for the Vigilance Commission within one week, the Commissioner Secretary Finance Department shall appear in person on next date of hearing to explain the reasons behind lackadaisical attitude towards this matter of much importance. Similarly, the General Administration Department Secretary has been directed to indicate the exercise carried out by Administrative Secretaries in identification of deadwood or appear in person to explain non-compliance of the directives.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Sheikh Mohammad Shafi Versus Union of India and several connected matters came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the latest status report filed by the General Administration Department vis-à-vis staff for the State Vigilance Commission (SVC).
“In the status report, it has been submitted that GAD had taken up the matter with the Finance Department for creation of posts in the SVC vide communication dated November 13, 2013 and issue is under the consideration of the Finance Department. However, despite issuance of three reminders latest by January 23, 2014 the response is awaited”, Advocate Ahmed said.
Advocate M A Bhat appearing for the Finance Department submitted that since Finance Department was not the party respondent the direction could not be carried out. However, DB remarked, in the open court, “the notice to Chief Secretary means notice to all the concerned departments”.
Taking serious note of cold shoulder response of the Finance Department, the Division Bench granted only one week’s time to the Commissioner Secretary Finance Department to do the needful and made it clear that in case of failure to ensure further compliance of the directions the officer shall remain present in person on next date of hearing to explain his conduct.
About the State Accountability Commission, Advocate Ahmad said, “this vital Commission has framed regulations whereby it has to be provided separate investigation wing for conducting inquiries into the complaints against the public servants but the Government is sleeping over numerous representations made by the Commission in this regard”.
He also drew the attention of the Division Bench towards Sections 25 and 26 of the State Accountability Commission Act, which states: “The Accountability Commission may for the purpose of conducting a preliminary inquiry or an investigation under the Act, utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the State Government or any other person or agency. Provided that the investigation agency required for the purpose shall be headed by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Inspector General of Police and such agency shall be under the exclusive administrative control and direction of the Commission”.
On this, Division Bench, in the open court, remarked, “it is admitted fact that without investigation wing Accountability Commission is without teeth. Job of the Commission is to examine and investigate the complaints before making recommendations to the Government otherwise complaints would be gathering dust”. Though Senior Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra tried to make some submissions yet the DB further remarked, “you pick up any Act of any State there is an independent body for investigation”.
Accordingly, the Division Bench directed Senior AAG to file a status report indicating the action taken on the numerous recommendations vis-à-vis investigation wing made by the Accountability Commission to the Government and persons sent on deputation as per rules and regulations of the J&K Accountability Commission Act.
The DB also arrayed State Accountability Commission as party and issued notice through its Secretary to explain the working and difficulties of the Commission.
Expressing satisfaction over the compliance of previous directions vis-à-vis State Information Commission, the DB directed that deputation of one Senior Prosecuting Officer to the State Information Commission, which is presently under process for which NOC has been sought from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, should be cleared expeditiously.
Pointing towards the previous directions of the DB regarding filing of status report with regard to response received from various Administrative Secretaries regarding identification of inefficient, deadwood and corrupt officers especially after the latest communication of GAD dated December 12, 2013, the counsel for the petitioner said, “this direction has also been taken very casually by the Government and no status report has been filed”, adding “this puts question mark on the Government’s intentions to deal with inefficient and corrupt officers in the administration”.
On this, DB reiterated directions to the GAD to file status report on the response received from the Administrative Secretaries failing which Secretary of the department shall remain present in person on next date of hearing to explain his conduct.
The DB also viewed very seriously no progress vis-à-vis four officers, who were identified by the High Level Committee for pre-mature retirement under Article 226(2) of J&K CSR. “The GAD was directed to take necessary steps with regard to these four officers but till date nothing has been done”, the DB said, in the open court, and directed the GAD to file status report in this regard also.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Special Bench may be constituted to hear three cases wherein stay orders are operating for non filing of challan in Rural Electrification Scam since July 2008.
The DB was apprised that in FIR No.19/2008 the then MD SFC Aijaz Ahmad Bhat has been declared proclaimed offender and on January 25, 2014 challan was presented against Abdul Gani Hajam (IFS) and Bilal Ahmed Wani in the court of Additional Session Judge Designated Special Judge Anti-corruption Court at Baramulla.
Advocate Ahmed also drew the attention of DB towards the latest judgment of the Apex Court wherein the registration of FIR has been held mandatory in case of disclosure of a cognizable offence and in cases of corruption the preliminary enquiry should not exceed seven days. He submitted that in investigating agencies of State—Vigilance Organization and Crime Branch numerous enquiries are pending over the years in flagrant violation of time limit fixed by the Apex Court.
The PIL will be listed for further consideration on February 25, 2014.
Follow our WhatsApp channel