Centre’s prompt approach on Durga case a first
The pro-active approach shown by the UPA government in dealing with the suspension of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Durga Nagpal has been apparently missing in similar cases of victimised bureaucrats in Congress-ruled states.Updated: Aug 06, 2013 00:22 IST
The pro-active approach shown by the UPA government in dealing with the suspension of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Durga Nagpal has been apparently missing in similar cases of victimised bureaucrats in Congress-ruled states.
The department for personnel and training (DoPT) which governs the All India Services has adopted a very cautious approach in such cases.
Minister of state for personnel, V Narayanasamy, on Monday said it was “wrong to compare” Nagpal’s case with that of Haryana IAS officer Ashok Khemka, who has been transferred more than 40 times in his 20-year service.
Khemka hit the headlines last year after he was shifted out of his job three days after cancelling a land deal between Robert Vadra, Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law, and real estate giant DLF.
Khemka’s is not an isolated example. In case of Haryana’s whistleblower Indian Forest Service officer, Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who was suspended by the state Congress government in 2006 for exposing the construction of an illegal canal in a wildlife sanctuary, the DoPT virtually distanced itself.
After Chaturvedi invoked the rules, the Union environment ministry overruled the state government and revoked his suspension in 2008.
But that wasn’t the end of Chaturvedi’s woes. In 2010, he made a representation to the environment ministry that he had been wrongly chargesheeted by the state government and departmental proceedings had been initiated against him only to harass him.
The ministry then set aside the charge sheet and quashed all disciplinary proceedings against him. It also favoured a CBI probe into the allegations of corruption leveled by him. But, the DoPT and law ministry have refused to accept the proposal.
“The Centre cannot intervene in cases of frequent transfers or spoiling of Annual Confidential Reports of central officers working under state governments,” the DoPT concluded.