HC raps former UT Home Secy

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 21

In an exceptional order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed strictures against former UT Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, Local Government, Anil Kumar. Rapping him for “casual and rather callous approach” in his capacity of “appellate authority” in a service matter, the High Court has deprecated his action. A fine of Rs 50,000 has also been imposed in the matter.

The strictures by Justice Deepak Sibal came on a petition filed by Radhey Shyam through counsel CM Chopra. Justice Sibal took note of the fact that the case had a “checkered history spread over a period of 20 years”, and this was the fourth time the petitioner was forced to approach the court for the vindication of his grievance.

Chopra told the court that the petitioner was serving the UT Municipal Corporation as sectional officer when his services were place under suspension in October 1995. Thereafter, a chargesheet for imposition of a major penalty was issued for alleged acts of omission and commission. After a legal rigmarole, the disciplinary authority in October 1999 imposed a penalty of removal from service, which would not be a disqualification for future employment under the government. This was, perhaps, just the beginning of a long legal battle.

After the matter was placed before the court in the fourth round of litigation, Justice Sibal noticed that the appellate authority vide an order dated February 21, 2013, decided only the preliminary submissions by the petitioner and his grouse was not even touched.

Justice Sibal asserted: “The appellate authority has, consistently and with impunity, not only been rejecting appeals filed by the petitioner without application of mind, but has also apparently been disregarding the orders passed by this court.

“It is unfortunate that in spite of specific orders passed by this court on three occasions, the appellate authority continued with its casual and rather callous approach. Due to the inaction on the part of the appellate authority, the petitioner has virtually lost about two decades of his life.

“It was a rather simple matter to decide the appeal of the petitioner after considering the issues raised by him, but it is unfortunate that the appellate authority could not do even that. I would have expected that a senior officer of the Chandigarh Administration like the appellate authority would have dealt with the matter with a higher degree of responsibility.”

Deprecating the action of the appellate authority, Justice Sibal granted another opportunity to decide the petitioner’s appeal and written arguments.

“In the facts of the case, I consider it proper to burden the appellate authority with costs of Rs 50,000, which should be deducted from the salary of the officer, who passed the order dated February 21, 2013.”