Ghulam Nabi Mir explains how certain amendments to service rules give arbitrary powers to a particular class of top level bureaucracy
Encouraging Sycophancy
Advocate Gulam Nabi Mir
The Government, vide SRO-27,1 dated 28th July, 2007, made certain amendments in the J&K Administrative Service Rules, 1979, inserting sub rule 6-B in the said rules. However, this sub rule is not only arbitrary and harsh but smells of malice. The sub-rule needs to be repealed in view of the fact that it is against mandates of law, besides being violation of human rights. These rules are prone to misuse and manipulation, especially sub section d, e and f of sub rule 6-B; these are reproduced as under:
If the Vigilance Organization has received any complaint(s) against any officer, the gist and nature of such complaints shall be made available by the Vigilance Commissioner to the General Administration Department for placement before the Establishment-Cum-Selection Committee for taking a view.
Inputs obtained by the General Administration Department from sources other than Vigilance Organization about the reputation and integrity of the officer shall be placed before the Establishment –Cum Selection Committee for taking a view;
In case the officer has been acquitted in any criminal/vigilance case, the Establishment-Cum-Selection Committee shall examine the grounds of acquittal, i.e. technical grounds or merit. In case, the officer has been acquitted on technical grounds, the Committee shall make specific recommendations whether the officer deserves to be empanelled for promotion to the Special scale/Super Time Scale or not;
These sub sections of the sub rule 6-B appear to be inserted with bias and vendetta against a section of employees who either are not posted in the Secretariat or do not enjoy close proximity to the persons at the helm of affairs. These Rules can become a tool of coercion to make people fall in line. It is a potential threat against those who are against Sycophancy and dare to take bold initiative to fight this menace of in the Administration or plead for transparency in the dealings which is often seen as undesirable.
By virtue of these rules any officer can be deprived of promotional benefit merely on an imaginary case either contemplated or likely to be contemplated against him and even false implication would mar his career.
The canons of law of land are clear that unless a person is convicted by a Court of law he cannot be treated as guilty or said to have committed the crime and nobody can be condemned unheard while as the sub sections referred to above vest all legal/judiciary powers with the Establishment Committee and the persons in corridors of Secretariat. These rules are even abusive to most stringent anti corruption rules of state and by inserting these sub rules the Government proves that it does not either trust these rules or the agency implementing these. No law of any place suggests double penalty for a crime. However, under these rules if a complaint of corruption or misuse is established against an accused he would be twice panelized, and if proved innocent even then he stands penalized.
These extra constitutional powers provided to a particular class and agency are bound to tell upon the imitative of officers and would compel them to either camp in the corridors of Secretariat or in the kitchens gardens of their bosses. In case present Government is sincere in allowing officers to work transparently and without prejudice to any section of society it must ab initio repeal the rules on the grounds put forth above and as the same are not applicable to human society, admitted principles of law, and principles of natural justice.