Showing posts with label LAW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LAW. Show all posts
Friday, 30 August 2013
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
In a forceful counter to the Centre's stand that top bureaucrats cannot be probed without its prior sanction, the CBI on Tuesday reiterated in the Supreme Court that in court-monitored investigations, the agency must be free to probe everyone without having to take any statutory sanction.
Just two days before the scheduled hearing in the 'Coalgate' case before a three-judge bench, the agency said, "There is no requirement of sanction for prosecution in cases where the court has either directed investigation or is monitoring investigation of case."
Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act provides that no officer of the rank of joint secretary and above can be investigated in a case without prior sanction from the government and the Centre had strongly defended it saying it was meant to protect bureaucrats from harassment.
The court had repeatedly asked, during the hearing on coal scam, about relevance of 'prior sanction' in court-monitored investigations.
In its affidavit settled by senior advocate Amarendra Saran, the agency said in court-monitored investigations, the court acted as guardian of the rights of the citizens and there was no room for bureaucrats under the scanner to fear harassment if they had taken honest decisions.
"Therefore, the objectives of Section 6A of DSPE Act are fully achieved when a case is monitored by the court, more specifically constitutional courts of the country," it said.
If one understood that prior sanction from the Centre was needed even in court-monitored investigations, "it would amount to suspension of the power of the constitutional courts to monitor investigation", the CBI said.
It would also be discriminatory since it could mean that the court had power to monitor investigations into cases only against officers who were below the rank of joint secretary, the agency said and feared that such an interpretation would be contrary to the legal principle that "no person is above the law".
"It is therefore necessary to read down the provisions of Section 6A of DSPE Act to mean that prior sanction under Section 6A is not necessary in cases where investigation is monitored by a constitutional court," the CBI said.
The agency also reiterated its demand, in the light of the court's attempt to insulate it from political interference and make it an independent investigation unit, seeking more powers for the CBI director.
What appeared to rile the CBI director was the Centre's refusal to grant him 'ex-officio powers of secretary to the government of India'. "It may be mentioned that already three police officers - secretary, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), secretary (internal security) in ministry of home affairs and secretary, security - are vested with powers of secretary to the GoI," the CBI said.
"Chairman of railway board and other members of railway board are also vested with the powers of secretary to the GoI," the CBI said and demanded greater financial powers to the CBI director.
While seeking a separate budget for itself, the CBI suggested that its director be independent of the ministry of department and personnel as far as investigations were concerned while remaining accountable to the minister concerned for administrative and financial matters.
Source : The Times of India
Friday, 9 August 2013
CAT as well as the Madras high court rules that Government employees can't avoid transfers. The ruling states that "a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place".
The division bench of the court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice TS Sivagnanam was passing orders on a petition filed by PR Anand Kumar, an army engineer who entered the Military Engineering Services as surveyor assistant in 1985. The post was re-designated as junior engineer. Anand was transferred from Chennai to Visakhapatnam on November 8, 2011. Anand had made a request to the army to be retained in Chennai which was rejected. Anand then approached the CAT. Citing paragraph 36(b)(c) of the transfer guidelines, the CAT said he ought not to have been transferred in the middle of an academic year. It asked the authorities to pass fresh orders if necessary.
The initial order was withdrawn owing to CAT ruling. But he was transferred to Hyderabad by an order dated February 10, 2012. He again rushed to CAT, which dismissed his application this time. He then moved the high court.
Rejecting his petition, the judges said: "The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is well settled. The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was for public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
"Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine," they said.
Though the guidelines deal with time of transfer and state that care will be taken to avoid transfers during the middle of the academic year, exceptions are available to meet requirements, the judges said. Transfers on administrative grounds may be ordered giving the employee less time, they said.
"There is no challenge to the order of transfer on the ground of any malafide exercise of power or that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or it violated any statutory rule," they said of Kumar's case.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Government-staff-cant-avoid-transfers-says-court/articleshow/21737720.cms
Monday, 5 August 2013
NEW DELHI: Misuse of red beacon and siren, granted by government to VIPs, is a menace to society and it must be stopped, the Supreme Court observed on Monday, asking the Centre to frame rules to restrict its use to only persons holding constitutional posts.
A bench of justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda asked the government to impose heavy and exemplary fine on its wrong use and granted two-week time to Centre to respond to it.
"How can citizens be treated differently," the bench said while referring to the problems faced by people when VIPs with high security cover move in vehicles with red beacon and siren.
"It is a menace to society," it said, adding such misuse "should be dealt with heavy hands and exemplary fine be imposed".
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by a Uttar Pradesh resident on misuse of red beacon.
Earlier, the bench had said the red light has become a status symbol and had said that police personnel, who are put on duty for giving security cover to VIPs, should be deployed for better purposes like making the roads safe for women.
It had also directed Centre and all the states for giving the list of persons being protected either by the central government or by the state administration.
The bench had said that it would consider forming a new mechanism for assessing security threat to people on the basis of which protection is given to them.
Source :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Misuse-of-red-beacon-siren-by-VIPs-is-menace-to-society-Supreme-Court/articleshow/21628397.cms
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Smt. Anita Kaul, a 1979 batch IAS officer of the Karnataka cadre, here today took charge as the Secretary, Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law & Justice. She brings with her rich administrative experience as she has worked in various capacities at the Centre and the State level. Immediately before joining the Department of Justice, Smt. Kaul was the Principal Secretary Planning in the Programme Implementation Department of the Govt. of Karnataka. Earlier she had served as Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India.
Source : PIB (Release ID :97522)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
