The
Indian Express: New Delhi: Friday, 08 August 2014.
For more than
two years, the Haryana government has been citing a note issued by the Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to prevent a CBI probe into multi-crore
forestry scams and other illegalities, allegations that go all the way up to
Chief Minister B S Hooda’s office.
After IFS
officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who blew the whistle on the scams, moved the Central
Information Commission (CIC) with questions on the note and its legality, the
CIC on May 20 set the PMO a seven-day deadline to come clean on the note. On
July 30, the CIC issued a notice to the PMO for noncompliance of that order.
The note
contends that the Centre has no jurisdiction to intervene if states violate
central Acts or harass whistleblowers belonging to the All India Services and,
therefore, an inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests was
“ultra vires of their powers and.devoid of any force of law”.
The MoEF had
conducted its inquiry in 2010. In December 2011, the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC) advised the MoEF “to take up the matter of registration of FIR
with the state government and subsequent transfer of the case to the CBI”,
confirming that the agency was ready to probe the cases.
Earlier in
2011, Chaturvedi wrote to the PMO seeking a CBI probe. The file was referred to
the DoPT, which in February 2012 wrote the confidential note to the PMO.
On the CVC’s
prodding, when the MoEF asked Haryana in March 2012 to file FIRs and entrust
the matter to the CBI, the state government used the note to stonewall the
ministry and counter the opposition in the assembly. The note has remained the
state’s key defence since Chaturvedi moved the Supreme Court in November 2012
seeking a CBI probe. Then, in April 2014, the Hooda government moved the high
court against the Centre on the strength of the same note, questioning the
MoEF’s authority to probe such matters.
While the
confidential note was meant for the PMO, M M Joshi, a serving IFS officer in
Haryana and a prime accused in the scams and violations, filed an RTI
application a week after it was issued. In three working days, the DoPT handed
Joshi the note, which was third-party information, without inviting objections
from Chaturvedi, which is mandatory under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
Armed with
the note, Joshi moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against the
whistleblower in March 2012. The DoPT was made a party in the case but it did
not submit its opinion in the tribunal. After one-and-a-half years, the case
was dismissed in August 2013 by the principal bench of the CAT.
The delay:
When
Chaturvedi challenged the legality of the note, the PMO in May 2012 asked DoPT
for a clarification. It took 17 months and six reminders before the DoPT
defended the note in September 2013 while admitting that the Department of
Legal Affairs did not “specifically comment” on the key issue of the Centre’s
jurisdiction.
The PMO wrote
back, asking for specific comments on the legality of the MoEF inquiry and the
recommendation for a CBI probe. Ten months on, the DoPT is yet to reply.
Contacted repeatedly, Dr Jitendra Singh, MoS, DoPT, refused to explain the
delay.
In October
2013, Chaturvedi filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking the minutes of
the meetings between the PMO and DoPT officials and action-taken reports on his
case so that he could initiate legal proceedings against the officials
concerned for “manufacturing and leaking a blatantly anti-constitutional
opinion”. He also sought to know if the DoPT note was approved by the cabinet
minister concerned (prime minister himself).
The First
Appellate Authority directed that the information be provided to Chaturvedi by
November 25, 2013. Instead, the PMO wrote to the MoEF that the PMO “cannot
enter into a communication with individual members of the services” and that
the MoEF should take suitable action against the officer for any “further
breach of established procedure”.
Chaturvedi
wrote again to the prime minister in March 2014, before approaching the CIC. On
May 20, chief information commissioner Sushma Singh ruled that the information
sought under the RTI was “disclosable” and set a week’s deadline. The new
government took over on May 26 but the PMO maintained its silence. Two months
on, the Commission issued the latest notice, asking the PMO to furnish a
compliance report within three weeks.
While UPA-2
dragged its feet, a number of MPs including the CPM’s Basudeb Acharia and the
BJP’s Rama Devi wrote to then prime minister Manmohan Singh for a CBI probe.
Last month, it was BJP MP and the party’s national executive member Udit Raj’s
turn to write to Dr Jitender Singh. Pointing out that “the officers who
manufactured this anti-constitutional opinion under political pressure are
still continuing in your department”, Raj urged the minister to ensure that
“the said opinion is withdrawn” and “accountability is fixed.for its
unauthorised leakage”.
Chaturvedi
refused to comment. Since 2007, he has been at the receiving end after raising
several allegations of corruption and
violation of laws. It took seven years, four presidential interventions and an
MoEF inquiry to revoke the suspension order and chargesheet slapped on
Chaturvedi by the state. In 2012, he moved out of Haryana on a deputation to
the health ministry.
.JPG)
.JPG)
