HC:Kumar had power to take decisions in CM’s absence

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 17

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that Chief Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Suresh Kumar could take decisions in the CM’s absence from the headquarters.

Justice Rajan Gupta asserted that standing order issued on March 16, 2017, showed that the CPSCM had been authorised to dispose of cases of immediate nature during the Chief Minister’s absence after discussion on mobile phone, if possible. The cases were to be put up before the CM on his return to headquarters for ex-post facto approval.

It was, thus, clear that in the CPSCM was authorised to take decision on files pertaining to certain departments, if he was not able to contact the CM in his absence. The files could relate to departments of Home, Vigilance, Personnel and Finance.

Justice Gupta added that it was, as such, evident that he could take decisions with regard to sovereign functions of the state. The stand taken during arguments that he would work only as “staff officer”, merely authorised to put up files before the CM and to assist in the CMO its functioning, was not borne out from the record. It was evident that in the eventuality he was not able to get through to the CM, he would be at liberty to take appropriate decision.

Justice Gupta asserted: “There can be situations where the Chief Minister may not approve the decision taken by the CPSCM. By that time it may be difficult to redeem the situation created by such a decision.”

Referring to file notings, Justice Gupta asserted it was clearly stated that he would be appointed in the rank and pay-scale of Cabinet Secretary, showing the state’s intention to empower the officer to take important decisions

During the course of arguments, Suresh Kumar did not file response to the issues raised by the petitioner against him, even through “writ of quo-warranto” is primarily directed against the usurper of office. Instead, the state tried to justify his appointment.

Justice Gupta said the Supreme Court had held that quo warranto lied against a person called upon to establish his legal entitlement to hold the office in question. In case, he failed to prove a valid authority to hold such office, writ of quo warranto would be directed against him.