Disciplinary Action against IAS Officer for filing writ in Supreme Court - Supreme Court orders payment of costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to officer - State is not hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy
IT all started with a writ petition in the Supreme Court Julio F. Ribero and others vs. Govt. of India including the IAS Officer Vijay Shankar Pandey, which came to be filed under the name and style of India Rejuvenation Initiative, a non-Government Organisation (NGO).
The Government charge sheeted the IAS officer on five grounds:
1. In the writ petition, he had enclosed a letter from another person to the Prime Minister making allegations against senior officers of the Directorate of Enforcement. This was not expected of you being a member of the All India Services.
2. Before becoming member of the institution named India Rejuvenation Initiative, you did not inform the government.
3. In the writ petition, senior officers of the Government of India were criticized, whereas the members of the All India Service are prohibited from criticizing, in the media or in the press, the actions of both the Central as well as the State Government.
4. In the writ petition, officers of the Enforcement Directorate of Government of India were criticized, whereas as per Rule-8 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules- 1968, members of the All India Service are not allowed to depose in any enquiry wherein the Central or the State government may be criticized.
5. In the writ petition, no permission of the State Government was sought for filing the additional affidavit which was filed by the petitioners (which also includes you), whereas members of the All India Service are not allowed to give any such information without prior permission of either the Central or the State Government which brings disregard to the Central or the State Government.
The Government was of the view that the IAS officer was guilty of violating Rule 3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968, which reads as: Every member of the service shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.
After crossing several channels, the IAS officer is before the Supreme Court.
In a landmark judgement yesterday, the Supreme Court was at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service.
The Supreme Court observed that the purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal- administration in the Government of India . The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of black money by whatever means fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to expose any mal-administration.
The Supreme Court further observed,
The Constitution declares that India is a sovereign democratic Republic. The requirement of such democratic republic is that every action of the State is to be informed with reason. State is not a hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy.
The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available.
The respondents consider that a complaint to this Court of executive malfeasance causing debilitating economic and security concerns for the country amounts to inappropriate conduct for a civil servant is astounding.
The Supreme Court ordered payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as costs to the IAS officer and held that it is open to the State to identify those who are responsible for the initiation of such unwholesome action against the appellant and recover the amounts, if the respondents can and have the political will .
You can read the full text of this classic judgement in