news details |
|
|
| Victim of Amarnath land row, IAS officer awaits action on CAT order | | |
SANT KUMAR SHARMA
JAMMU, Sept 28: A Chandigarh bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had rubbished the action taken by the state government against senior IAS officer, Dr Arun Kumar, for his allegedly ``irresponsible'' utterances in a press conference held on June 17, 2008.
On May 20 this year, a CAT bench comprising Mr Justice M. Ramachandran, vice-chairman, and Mr Khushi Ram, Member (A), had said: ``He should be given a position commensurate with his status and seniority and taking notice of this intrinsic worth. The circumstances which led to the precipitation of the issues are to be forgotten by the Govt. as a bad dream.''
``We direct that appropriate steps are to be taken to comply with our directions, within four months from today. With these directions, the OA stands disposed of. No order is made as to costs.''
An application before the CAT is called OA (other application) just as an application seeking justice from a high court is called a writ petition.
The period of four months given by the CAT to the state government to take corrective steps lapsed on September 20 but no action has been taken. While specifically referring to Dr Kumar's remarks made at the June 17 press briefing, the CAT had said: ``We feel that (the) Govt. ought not have been touchy about the statement that is alleged to have been made by an officer at the time of briefing the press.''
Incidentally, it is pertinent to recall here that the government here refers to the Governor, Mr N N Vohra, as he was heading the government when action was initiated against Dr Kumar. ``Government of course has to soften the moods of general public but that should not be by venturing into a sacrifice or sabotaging the career of an individual,'' the CAT order had said.
Referring to the findings of an inquiry committee constituted by Mr Vohra, the order said: ``It is stated that he (Dr Kumar) had exceeded his limits or had put the Govt. at a difficult position but this was too much of an allegation and there was no connection between the press conference and the incidents which had later on occurred, during the Amarnath Yatra.''
``As a result, we hold that the disciplinary proceedings which owed its existence to the report also could not have been possible to be upheld.''
Rewind to the Amarnath land row of July-August 2008 when the inter-regional tensions, with serious communal overtones, between the Kashmir valley and Jammu touched their nadir. While leaders across the political spectrum spewed venom to woo voters, the axe had fallen on Dr Kumar for his allegedly ``irresponsible'' statements at the June 17 press conference.
Mr Vohra had later constituted a committee comprising three IAS officers to inquire into allegations against Dr Kumar. The committee comprised Mr S S Sawhney, Dr R K Jerath and Mr Basharat Ahmed Dhar.
Dr Kumar had challenged the committee's composition as being ``misconceived, illegal and against the statutory rules''. His lawyer, Mr A K Sawhney, had referred to Rule 8(3) of the IAS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. The lawyer had pointed out before the CAT that two of the three committee members were junior to the applicant; Dr R.K. Jerath by one year and Mr Dhar by 10 years. Thus, the constitution of the committee was irregular.
Apart from the irregularity in the constitution of the committee, the circumstances would indicate, counsel (Mr A K Sawhney) submits that there was ulterior motive which would have amounted to mala fide and the order is liable to be set aside, the CAT remarked in its May 20 order.
Dr Kumar had filed the case against the Union of India through Secretary (Personnel),
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi, the State of J & K through its Chief Secretary, J & K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, and the Commissioner cum Secretary, General Administration Department, J & K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
The CAT order was passed ex parte against the J&K Government as nobody represented it during the hearings. The Union of India was represented by Rohit Sharma, proxy for Deepak Agnihotri, its counsel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
