*Details of officers involved in 147 enquiries sought
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 4: Castigating the Government for its failure to make important Commissions operative in real sense, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar today directed the Home and Law Secretaries to appear in person on April 21 for not providing independent investigating agency to the State Accountability Commission and inordinate delay in finalizing the recruitment rules for the employees of this statutory body.
The Division Bench also viewed very seriously the inaction in 147 departmental enquiries, exposed exclusively by EXCELSIOR, and directed the Government to furnish information vis-à-vis stage of enquiries, nature of charges, status of officers and their present postings. Moreover, explicit directions were issued to the Government for filling up of 49 posts sanctioned for seven courts of Additional Sessions Judges empowered to adjudicate the corruption cases.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the most shocking approach of the Government towards the menace of corruption came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, who was appearing for the petitioner along with Advocate Irfan Khan, submitted that the status report filed by the General Administration Department regarding 147 departmental enquiries was vague. However, he said that GAD has admitted that fate of such a large number of departmental enquiries was hanging in balance because of non-cooperating attitude of the concerned departments.
“In the status report, the Special Secretary, GAD has mentioned that for timely completion of the departmental enquiries, various circular instructions were issued to the concerned departments from time to time and the latest one on March 28, 2014. However, there was no response from the concerned departments”, Advocate Ahmad said, adding “this clearly indicates that Government wants to shield the officers facing these departmental enquiries”.
He further submitted that people of the State have a right to know who these 147 officers are and these officers appeared to be highly influential as Government is bent upon to shield them.
After going through the status report and hearing the arguments of Advocate Ahmed, the DB observed, “on an earlier occasion it was stated by the respondents that no such case was pending which has now been belied by the status report filed by the General Administration Department itself”, adding “this disclosure has been made only after the petitioners filed an application wherein press report divulging the pendency of 143 such cases has been attached”.
“The disclosure in status report reveals less and conceals much more”, the DB remarked, adding “the stage of action, names of the officers, the nature of charges and the action proposed to be taken has not been disclosed. Moreover, it is also concealed from the court as to whether these officers are discharging duties holding high responsible positions or they are positioned at less responsible positions. Besides, there is no time bound action suggested”.
With these remarks and observations, the DB directed that complete disclosure with regard to the stage of enquiries, nature of charges, status of officers and their present postings be made to this court so that appropriate orders be passed and directions are issued.
About the recruitment rules for the employees of the State Accountability Commission and providing independent investigating agency, Advocate Ahmed said, “there is no compliance of the previous directions whereby Senior AAG Gagan Basotra was asked to make a statement on next date of hearing with regard to notifying of the recruitment rules”.
On this, Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, counsel for the Accountability Commission drew the attention of the DB towards the response filed by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs with regard to the providing of staff to SAC, which is left high and dry and its working has been totally impeded.
The DB observed, “Mr Sethi has submitted that recruitment rules for the employees of the Commission are stated to be at the final stage and are likely to be issued very soon. Thereafter, the vacancies are proposed to be referred to the recruiting agency for selection of eligible candidates”, adding “the Senior AAG is not in a position to apprise the court about the status of the recruitment rules as to whether same have been notified or not”.
“Mr Sethi has also stated that no independent investigating agency has been provided to the Accountability Commission as required by the statute and the correspondence is going on between the Law Department and Home Department since September 21, 2011 followed by reminders dated September 28, 2012, May 3, 2013 and February 18, 2014”, the DB said.
The DB observed, “it is surprising that after setting up the Accountability Commission by amending the Act in 2011 and making appointment of two former Judges no steps have been taken to facilitate its working”, adding “we fail to understand the purpose of establishing such Commissions, if they are not to be made operative and they are to showcase like elephant teeth which intends to be achieved by setting up such Commissions has not been understood”.
“We are left with the impression that such Commissions are like flyovers hanging in air without any access roads. The correspondence for providing statutory investigating agency to the Commission is going on for the last over two and half years”, the DB said, adding “we are going to issue proper invitation to the Home Secretary”.
On this, Advocate Ahmad, in the open court, remarked, “he (Home Secretary) needs to be felicitated”.
Accordingly, the DB directed the Secretary, Home Department to appear in person on the next date of hearing (April 21, 2014) and explain as to why proposal mooted by the Law Department has not been put in operation and independent investigating agency not been provided to the Accountability Commission.
The DB also directed Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department to appear in person to explain as to why the recruitment rules for the employees of the Commission have not been finalized despite the directions issued by the Court.
About the previous directions regarding providing of prosecution agency and other infrastructure to the seven courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges designated as Anti-corruption Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the DB observed, “the status report has been filed disclosing that the Finance Department has conveyed its concurrence for creation of 49 regular posts with the average of 7 posts in each court”.
“However, no time period has been given as to when these persons would be in a position to discharge their duties”, the DB said and directed that these 49 posts should be filled up within four weeks from today so that a regular mechanism advancing administration of justice is in place because adhocism, which is the rule in the State, may not mar the working of the Courts.
As the Senior AAG stated that Cabinet approval was needed for the creation of 49 posts and no time-frame could be fixed for the same in view of Model Code of Conduct, the DB said, “Cabinet may take a decision at the earliest and by devising a mechanism which is adopted in most urgent cases”. Accordingly, the DB directed that Cabinet approval shall be accorded to the proposal of creation of 49 posts within two weeks. “The re-structured proposal sent by the Vigilance Commission in pursuance of the observations made on February 18, 2014 shall also be placed before the Cabinet and approval be sought within two weeks time”, the DB directed.
About the interim arrangement to provide Prosecuting Officers to the seven courts, the DB observed, “some suggestions have been made to overcome the present difficulty created by staff crunch, which has brought working of these courts to standstill”, adding “as a stop gap arrangement it has been suggested to re-employ former CPOs. It has been disclosed that the file has already been processed. In the minutes of meeting regarding posting of officers in the Vigilance Organization, the Chief Secretary has desired the Home Department to place the file containing the proposal for posting of former CPOs as a stop gap arrangement before him for his perusal”.
“However, it would be appropriate for the General Administration Department to place the proposal before this Court also so that we are able to find out the officers, who are likely to be associated with the working of the Courts”, the DB directed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel