Corruption, Imputations and Public Outrage and Article 311(2)

The entire government machinery – the politicians and the civil servants in India – are facing the worst ever low in terms of credibility and reputation.
The recent incidents have left every one open mouthed and flabbergasted.

The Prime Minister’s role

The Prime Minister’s assertion that he is innocent does not impress anyone.
No one has cast any aspersion on his honesty.

But as the leader of his Council of Ministers, it is his duty to keep tabs on his Ministers.
It is his duty to see that his colleagues and subordinates live up to the expectations of the common man.
It is for him to see and ensure that public money is not stolen or squandered.

A Raja and Suresh Kalmudi

It is not sufficient for A Raja, the former Telecom Minister, to say that he has done nothing wrong; or for Suresh Kalmudi, Chairman of the Common Wealth Games Organising Committee, to say that he is innocent till proved guilty.
Both of them have taken arbitrary decisions which have caused huge losses to the nation.
They have taken unilateral decisions which have been criticised all around.
We all know that Commissions of Enquiry and the like will be constituted.
But we also know all these are only waste of more public money.
Nothing happens !

The two should have been thrown out long back.

Once their chastity had been thrown open to doubt, they themselves should have resigned.

Now the public should remember their misdeeds and ensure that they are never reelected to any post. But alas, the public is too innocent and forgets the past too fast.

 P. J. Thomas, Chief Vigilance Commissioner

Worst still are the likes of P J Thomas, Chief Vigilance Commissioner who was the Telecom Secretary during the time all the Telecom bungling was taking place.

A government officer against whom any proceedings are pending cannot be appointed to any post retirement post. Thomas could not have been appointed to any post. But he managed to become the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.

The Chief Vigilance Commissioner can be removed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003. A portion of this section is reproduced below:

 6. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Central Vigilance Commissioner

or any Vigilance Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the

President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

(2) The President may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from

attending the office during inquiry, the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance

Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the President may by

order remove from office the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner if the Central Vigilance Commissioner or such Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be,—

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central

Government, involves moral turpitude; or

(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the

duties of his office; or

(d) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of

infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially

his functions as a Central Vigilance Commissioner or a Vigilance Commissioner.
So stringent are the safeguards and so limited the grounds for removal of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, that they are difficult to use, if and when necessary.

I really find it difficult to understand how Thomas can continue.  He should have resigned like a gentlemen.

The Supreme Court is now hearing the matter and it can issue a writ of Quo Warranto holding his appointment as invalid.

 Adarsh Housing Society and similar scandals 

Adarsh Housing Society and similar scandals need a quick deterrent action.

Someone once narrated a story of a young girl who had been raped.
She went to the police station to lodge an FIR.
The junior most officer took her inside his cabin, and under the pretext of recording her statement, raped her.
His senior came and did the same. And this was repeated several times.
Finally, a Superintendent called her into his room and said he would like to record her statement. The entire incident came to light when she told him that her statement had already been recorded five times.

Adarsh Society was raped and ravaged at every level. Every senior officer, through whose hands the file passed, took a portion of the rich pie.

Now the Government is asking the concerned officers to explain the source of investment. I have no doubt the source will be fully explained.
What is heinous is the way flats meant for the defence personnel were taken by different officer and politicians and this is what calls for deterrent action.
Civil servants enjoy invulnerability and enormous power.
They are difficult to touch.

But there is Article 311(2) which can be invoked in appropriate cases.
I am reproducing it :

Article 311 {Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State}

( (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply –

 (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

Post Retirement Posts

Surprisingly, the post retirement posts, like various posts in the Human Rights Commission and Information Commission increase the immunity several fold.
Some thing far more effective and meaningful is called for.

The Britishers had the unique knack of calling such officers and asking them to resign or face a formal infamous enquiry.  Guilty officers preferred to resign.

Perhaps, we can do the same.

17 January 2011 Adarsh Society – the latest

 The environment ministry has ordered that the scam-hit housing society building has to be demolished within three months for Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violations.

In its 29-page order, the ministry has concluded that the 31-storey structure built at Block 6, Backbay Reclamation Area in Mumbai’s upscale Colaba area, is ‘unauthorised’ and should be removed in its entirety and the area should be restored to its original condition.

The members of the Society will probably approach the courts.