* Adm Secys not forwarding deadwood cases to GAD
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 31: Taking serious note of the Government’s half-hearted approach towards nailing the corrupt officers in the administration, Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi today stated that State bureaucracy wakes up to the duty of checking the menace of corruption only on the intervention of the judiciary.
“Those who are supposed to play key role in checking the menace of corruption and take action against the corrupt, inefficient and deadwood in the administration perform only when courts intervene and pass directions”, remarked Chief Justice M M Kumar, in the open court, during the course of hearing in a Public Interest Litigation titled Sheikh Mohd Shafi Versus Union of India and Others.
“Does the Government want courts to identify the corrupt officers, which is primarily the job of those at the helm of affairs”, the DB said, adding “it is due to non-serious approach that an inference is drawn that Government is siding with the corrupt and want to shield the corrupt officers”.
The DB further remarked, “it is not understandable as to how the officers/officials can be allowed to work on the same post once they are trapped by the anti-graft body”, adding “why such cases are allowed to move from one authority to another for years together before the action is taken”.
These remarks were made by the Division Bench after going through the status report submitted by the General Administration Department (GAD) mentioning the work done by the High Level Committee headed by Chief Secretary, which was constituted in May 2011 for identifying the deadwood in various departments of the State, besides the latest communication of the GAD to all the Administrative Secretaries.
When the PIL came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad appearing for the petitioner referred to the latest status report filed by Additional Secretary, General Administration Department in compliance to the earlier directions of the court and pointed out that the High Level Committee held its meeting only thrice since May 16, 2011.
“The last meeting of the committee was held on January 27, 2012 and since then the committee has not met which clearly indicates that no proposals are coming from the Administrative Secretaries about the officers/officials who have outlived their utility in service as was specifically mentioned in the GAG order dated October 25, 2010”, Advocate Ahmad said.
Pointing towards 13 cases, which were considered by the High Level Committee and recommended for premature retirement under Article 226 (2) of J&K CSRs, Advocate S S Ahmad said, “the Government is only identifying the small fries while as the sharks are not being touched for the obvious reasons”. “In four cases, which were returned to the Administrative Secretaries after these were considered by the High Level Committee with advice to process the same and furnish details for the consideration of the committee, the response is still awaited”, he added.
The counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that it was only after the previous order of the Division Bench that the Secretary, General Administration Department sent a communication to all the Administrative Secretaries vide DO No.GAD (Vig)5-Adm/2011 dated December 18, 2013 mentioning that despite several reminders the Administrative Secretaries were not forwarding the cases of inefficient officers/officials for submission to the High Level Committee.
“The communiqué states that High Level Committee cannot proceed into the matter without any case having been referred to it by the Administrative Departments”, Advocate Ahmad said, adding “this clearly indicates that the Administrative Secretaries are not keen to identify the deadwood in their departments and want to shield them”.
On this, the Division Bench remarked, “it is really a matter of serious concern that even after being trapped by the State Vigilance Organization, the accused officers/officials are allowed to work on the same post and the concerned department takes no step for expeditious furnishing of details for appropriate action”. “What more proof is required when a person is caught red-handed while taking bribe”? DB asked.
Advocate Ahmad also drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the status report with regard to non-IFS officer Ajaz Ahmad Bhat against whom FIR No.19/2008 has been registered by the State Vigilance Organization and said, “it is astonishing that accused namely Ajaz Ahmad Bhat, the then MD SFC has absconded and fled to America”. Why his passport was not impounded when he was booked by the Vigilance Organization? he asked.
After hearing Advocate S S Ahmad and Senior Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra, the Division Bench directed the Administrative Secretaries of all the departments to ensure expeditious compliance of the latest communiqué of the GAD seeking information about the deadwood for further submission to the High Level Committee and Senior AAG was directed to submit fresh status report after four weeks indicating the response in this regard and action taken in the four cases returned to Administrative Secretaries by the High Level Committee.
About the non-IFS officer Ajaz Ahmad Bhat, the DB directed that he should be declared as absconder under Section 512 CrPC and challan be presented against him in absentia.
Follow our WhatsApp channel