CHANDIGARH: A central committee has termed the matter of Haryana's whistle-blower as a classic case of the state government which itself broke the law, protected violators and punished IFS Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who tried to uphold law. In its report of over 100 pages, the committee has suggested ways how honest officers can be protected in the country.
Taking the case of Chaturvedi as an example of harassment, the inquiry committee comprising inspector general of forests AK Srivastava and assistant inspector general of forests Shally Ranjan have recommended long-term actions to be taken by the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF).
''To prevent the misuse of powers under Rule 7 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, regarding institution of disciplinary proceedings, it should be made mandatory for the state governments to get the chargesheet of major penalties, approved by the central government before serving to the officer concerned. This is judicially established position that the chargesheet for major penalty should be issued only after the approval of appointing authority, which in the case of All India Service officers, is the central government,'' said the committee in its report.
''One of the main reasons for a large number of cases pending in the courts in which government is litigant against its own employees, is that the authorities concerned never decide or pass speaking orders on the representations of the employees. The service rules should be suitably modified to ensure a time-bound decision by the competent authorities on the representations of the employees,'' suggested the committee.
Taking Haryana's case as an example, the panel said, ''The service rules should be suitably modified so that in case of any violation, the erring officials have to pay penalty either in the monetary form or otherwise. This can prevent situations like repeated violations of cadre rules in states like Haryana. Such cases should be brought in the ambit of the central vigilance commission for wholesome treatment and also for deterrence to the erring officers. The state vigilance bureaus should be given more teeth and immunity from the state machinery. The mechanism for the protection of the whistle-blowers should be strengthened at the state level.''
Notably, the strong recommendations came after the panel established that Chaturvedi, who had just joined the state cadre after completing his training was harassed for his attempts to prevent the destruction of a wildlife sanctuary and preventing the misuse or misappropriation of government funds in various plantation projects or schemes including that of developing a herbal park on private land belonging to politically influential persons at the cost of public exchequer. The committee has quoted a letter of the cabinet secretary, dated March 3, 2010, to all chief secretaries clearly reiterating the path which the civil servants must always endeavour to tread. However, the present case portrays a contrary picture, in which instead of showing zero tolerance towards corruption, zero tolerance was shown for integrity, honesty and lawful duty,'' the panel observed.
All powers available with the vested interests in the state government including suspension, issuing chargesheet and keeping it pending for more than three years, frequent transfers, slapping false cases were applied on the officer. Even the orders of central government, Supreme Court-appointed panel (central empowered committee), Central Administrative Tribunal, State Information Commission and even the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) could not deter the powerful vested interests in Haryana from harassing the officer,'' concluded the committee.
Interestingly, its unique case in the country when the President intervened twice; first to revocate illegal suspension of Chaturvedi in 2008 and recently when the first citizen of the country quashed the fabricated chargesheet issued against the whistle-blower. The panel has also highlighted how RTI Act helped the officer in challenging his illegal suspension and fabricated chargesheet before the central government.
Taking the case of Chaturvedi as an example of harassment, the inquiry committee comprising inspector general of forests AK Srivastava and assistant inspector general of forests Shally Ranjan have recommended long-term actions to be taken by the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF).
''To prevent the misuse of powers under Rule 7 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, regarding institution of disciplinary proceedings, it should be made mandatory for the state governments to get the chargesheet of major penalties, approved by the central government before serving to the officer concerned. This is judicially established position that the chargesheet for major penalty should be issued only after the approval of appointing authority, which in the case of All India Service officers, is the central government,'' said the committee in its report.
''One of the main reasons for a large number of cases pending in the courts in which government is litigant against its own employees, is that the authorities concerned never decide or pass speaking orders on the representations of the employees. The service rules should be suitably modified to ensure a time-bound decision by the competent authorities on the representations of the employees,'' suggested the committee.
Taking Haryana's case as an example, the panel said, ''The service rules should be suitably modified so that in case of any violation, the erring officials have to pay penalty either in the monetary form or otherwise. This can prevent situations like repeated violations of cadre rules in states like Haryana. Such cases should be brought in the ambit of the central vigilance commission for wholesome treatment and also for deterrence to the erring officers. The state vigilance bureaus should be given more teeth and immunity from the state machinery. The mechanism for the protection of the whistle-blowers should be strengthened at the state level.''
Notably, the strong recommendations came after the panel established that Chaturvedi, who had just joined the state cadre after completing his training was harassed for his attempts to prevent the destruction of a wildlife sanctuary and preventing the misuse or misappropriation of government funds in various plantation projects or schemes including that of developing a herbal park on private land belonging to politically influential persons at the cost of public exchequer. The committee has quoted a letter of the cabinet secretary, dated March 3, 2010, to all chief secretaries clearly reiterating the path which the civil servants must always endeavour to tread. However, the present case portrays a contrary picture, in which instead of showing zero tolerance towards corruption, zero tolerance was shown for integrity, honesty and lawful duty,'' the panel observed.
All powers available with the vested interests in the state government including suspension, issuing chargesheet and keeping it pending for more than three years, frequent transfers, slapping false cases were applied on the officer. Even the orders of central government, Supreme Court-appointed panel (central empowered committee), Central Administrative Tribunal, State Information Commission and even the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) could not deter the powerful vested interests in Haryana from harassing the officer,'' concluded the committee.
Interestingly, its unique case in the country when the President intervened twice; first to revocate illegal suspension of Chaturvedi in 2008 and recently when the first citizen of the country quashed the fabricated chargesheet issued against the whistle-blower. The panel has also highlighted how RTI Act helped the officer in challenging his illegal suspension and fabricated chargesheet before the central government.
Courtesy: TOI
