It does not augur well for the State Administration to be censured too often by the High Court for its blatant acts of commission and omission when brought to Court’s notice. Everybody knows that a High Court does not ordinarily accept a PIL case for prosecution under rules unless it is satisfied that there is some substance in the complaint. But when a case is accepted, the respondents have to follow the law. And when the respondent fails to go by the procedure, the court has the powers to censure and take further actions.
In the light of this generalization, we find that the State Administration has been failing to maintain normal standard of responding to the directives of the court. In a PIL titled Sheikh Mohd. Shafi and Another versus Union of India and Others, the Division Bench of the High Court has been so much disappointed on non-seriousness of the State Administration Department in responding to the PIL allegations that it had to issue strictures against the Department to the extent of casting aspersions on its integrity and sincerity in eradicating corruption, misappropriation and misuse of authority in a number of cases involving State functionaries. The pronouncements of the Divisional Bench have sent a message that the administration has no scruples to adhere to fair and honest administration. It is so conceited as to hide the facts from the court or circumvent the facts and submit only half truths and hide the major part of the case. Way back in April 2004, the Court had asked the Administration to furnish full details about 147 departmental enquiries pending with the Government. The Court asked for the names, status and posting of the indicted officials/officers, the nature of allegations against them and the status of the inquiry conducted. The main concern of the Court was that officers/officials against whom allegations of corruption or misappropriation are pending should not be posted at positions where they will have to handle matters of public dealing because in all probability they would continue to indulge in corrupt practices and thus bring more shame to the Government. Out of 147 departmental enquiries, reports on only 12 cases were submitted to the Court. On examining them the Court found that even these twelve were not answering most of the questions put to them. These did not disclose the names of the alleged officers/officials not the full detail of the nature of charges against them. This is a cause disappointment to the Court.
What trickles down from the observations of the Division Bench is that the administration is in nexus with the functionaries and is trying to shield them by not furnishing full details of their malpractices when in office. The court has not failed to observe that there are clear indications of corruption that cannot be kept hidden either from the court or from the public. Take the case of functionaries of the Revenue Department who are facing charges of illegal transfer of 1200 kanals of State land in Kot Bhalwal area. The State land had been sold in excess in connivance with the revenue functionaries and the case, when brought to the notice of the administration by the court, was referred to the Divisional Commissioner Jammu in July 2011. Nothing has happened after July 2011, the court observed. Obviously, the inference that is to be drawn is that the Government does not want to disclose the names of persons involved for fear of opening the Pandora’s Box.
This is a very sad reflection on the integrity of the administration. It is a clear indication that sections of administration are not mentally and officially prepared to eradicate corruption and other malpractices from the administration. This is a diseased social set up and functionaries have no qualms of conscience. But we fail to understand why the anti-corruption laws are not made operative in letter and in spirit. Even the Division Bench has also observed the criminal justice institution is slack and ineffective in the State. Unless laws are enforced strictly and the culprits are punished, there may not be any hope of improving the administration of the State. The simple intention of the administration in not revealing the names of the indicted officials and not mentioning their position is to let them continue in position of public dealings and let them continue with their corrupt practices. However, the court has made a generalization that it is not admissible to allow indicted officials to continue at postings where they are to handle public dealing. The comments of the Division Bench in the case under consideration cannot be brushed aside by any responsible Government.
Interestingly, finding itself convinced that the administration was not forthcoming to let anti-corruption drive become meaningful in the State, it has pointed out that it was in August 2013 that powers were given to seven District and Session Judges to deal with corruption cases. They needed Prosecution Officers to begin their work but nearly a year has gone by and the Prosecution Officers have not been appointed with the result that the district judicial authorities cannot proceed with prosecuting of functionaries alleged of corruption. The Court has expressed is displeasure on inordinate delay in appointing the Prosecution Officers.
Follow our WhatsApp channel