A PIL was filed in the State High Court in which the petitioners demanded to know what action the Government had taken in the cases identified for violation of rules and code of conduct under Article 226(2) and 226 (3) of J&K Civil Services Regulations (CSR). The Government had constituted a committee headed by the Chief Secretary to take action against the “dead woods” identified by concerned departments. Till date the respondents, have not made public the recommendations of the committee which had been assigned a vital task.
According to the Right to Information Act, the Government is supposed to inform the applicants what action the committee has taken about identification of tainted officers and how the matter has been brought to logical conclusion. The counsel of the petitioner rightly argued that respondents cannot keep the recommendations of the committee close to their chest and people of the State have a right to know about the work done and also the names of the employees who were identified for being processed under Article 226(2) and Article 226(3) of J&K CSR. The point is that the Act essentially caters to the need of introducing measures that would curb corruption at higher levels of administration. If a senior official is proved guilty of any corrupt practice, punishing him by making him accountable to thy rule of law would spread a message across the administration that there is accountability and the Government means business. If a particular officer is found implicated in a case of corruption, by sitting over the matter, he is provided a opportunity to escape the gallows either by reaching the age of superannuation before he is tried and punished or by burying the papers deep under a plethora of files till it gets watered down. In either case it is a reflection on law enforcing authority. When a committee is constituted for specific purpose and the committee sends in its report after making a study on ground, the simple logic is that the Government should either accept the report and order follow up action or it should reject the report and come out with an alternative of how to deal with any tainted official’s case. Obviously, after the Committee has submitted the report and indicted the officers, there is every possibility of these tainted officers using their influence to put the report in cold store and never allow it to be taken up for implementation.
The Divisional Bench of the High Court has taken serious view of Civil Miscellaneous Application issue and consequently reacting to the application made to it by the petitioners asked the State Government to produce the entire record of the “deadwoods” case in State administration. Naturally, the High Court, fully alive to its responsibility of enforcing element of morality and ethics into the structure of administration, has shown consideration to the petitioners.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel