B Ashok: 10 things about the Kerala IAS; his support for Modi and state govt’s disciplinary proceedings

THE Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed disciplinary proceedings initiated by Kerala government against 1998 batch IAS officer B Ashok who had in a 2013 article supported the proposed visit of the then Gujarat chief minister (and current Prime Minister) Narendra Modi to a Sivagiri Madhom function, something which the state government had disapproved of. An apex court bench said, merely writing a newspaper article could not be construed as a breach of All India Services (conduct) Rules, 1968. BoI here presents 10 things about IAS officer Ashok and the case he got embroiled into:

Black Money: New panel comprises revenue secretary, CBI director, IB director, CBDT chairman among others

PM with cabinet secretary Seth and principal secretary Misra

THE Union Cabinet on Tuesday approved setting up of Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice MB Shah, to unearth black money stashed abroad. Only four days ago, the apex court had directed the Centre to keep all papers relating to black money in the safe custody of an officer, not below the rank of revenue secretary in the backdrop of the last Thursday’s fire at Shastri Bhawan. Incidentally, current revenue secretary Rajiv Takru is a Gujarat cadre IAS of…

How Supreme Court’s Tuesday judgement makes CBI director the most powerful bureaucrat

CENTRAL government officers holding the rank of joint secretaries and above can now be probed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) without taking prior government permission, Supreme Court said on Tuesday in a landmark judgement that will in many ways make CBI director, an IPS officer, more powerful than cabinet secretary, the top Indian bureaucrat, a post reserved for IAS cadres. A five-judge constitutional bench ruled in favour of striking down…

Govt sets deadline for ministries to implement SC order of reserving 3% govt jobs for disabled

THE government has given written directions to various ministries and departments to implement a Supreme Court order asking for a minimum three percent reservation for people with disabilities in all Central and state government jobs. It was on October 8, 2013, an apex court bench regretted the denial of opportunities to…

SC ruling on fixed tenure, oral instructions will strengthen bureaucracy; Full List of 83 bureaucrat petitioners

IN A landmark intervention, India’s Apex Court is ensuring that civil servants are not forced to act upon oral instructions of their political bosses, except in certain exceptional circumstances. Also, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose on Thursday directed the Centre and state governments to pass order in three months on giving fixed tenure to civil servants. But who are those 83 former bureaucrats, on whose…

Govt to appoint Information Commissioners; appointments to be conditional

THE government has decided to appoint more Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, the agency which is the final word on any RTI dispute. The government has decided to go ahead with the appointment process even though there is an on-going ligation in the apex court. A DoPT advertisement dated May 31, 2013 said that “these appointments would be subject to the outcome of…

Excerpts of SC judgement on information commission; retired babus to lose out

OVER 100 retired bureaucrats across the country will cease to get post-retirement employment after Supreme Court in its recent verdict made it mandatory for Central and State Information Commissions to have at least one judicial member while hearing appeals of information seekers under RTI Act, 2005. A bench comprising justice AK Patnaik and justice S Kumar asked the government to get the RTI Act amended quickly to clear any ambiguity. But bigger question is: will this verdict be later extended to other quasi-judicial bodies like…

10 facts including Court verdicts on quota in promotion of government jobs

An all-party meet in New Delhi on quota in promotion of govt jobs

THE government may bring in a new bill in Parliament, preferably during this current session, which will validate quota in promotion of government jobs in the backdrop of Supreme Court striking down such reservation in a case in Uttar Pradesh recently. In this highly political proposition, all parties except Samajwadi Party and National Conference, have given their nod. But this political move is creating a fear psychosis in government offices as it may divide the work-force on a caste line, and it is argued that deserving general caste officers may lag behind. BoI here presents 10 facts including earlier Supreme Court judgements as curated from observations made in Tuesday’s all-party meet on the subject:

Text of Supreme Court's indictment of PMO officials in Subramanian Swamy case

IN A major embarrassment to top bureaucrats in PMO, India’s apex court in a judgement on Tuesday criticized Manmohan Singh’s “advisors and other officers”. The Supreme Court in its judgement recommended that any complaint that asks for the prosecution of a public servant be decided by the government department within a period of four months. The two-judge bench passed the order on a petition filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy who was made to wait for about 16 months by the Prime Minister's Office when he asked for former telecom minister A Raja to be tried on a corruption case related to 2G spectrum license. The judgement however exonerated the PM when it said: “Respondent No. 1 (PM) is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers.”
Here is the excerpt of the Supreme Court judgment on PM and PMO officials
“The concerned officers in the PMO kept the matter pending   and then took the shelter of the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending. In our view, the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty bound to apprise respondent No.1 (the PM) about seriousness of allegations made by the appellant (Swamy)....By the very nature of the office held by him, respondent No. 1 (PM) is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give proper advice to respondent No. 1 (the PM) and place full facts and legal position before him failed to do so. We have no doubt that if respondent No.1 (the PM) had been apprised of the true factual and legal position regarding the representation made by the appellant (Swamy), he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year.”
The PMO in a tweet first said: “Please standby for a statement from the PMO on today's judgement by the Honourable Supreme Court.” Minutes later, there were a number of funny tweets. One of them wrote after half an hour: “Still standing sir. Please speed up that tweet.” Another nasty comment said: “Will you give a statement after 16 months?” Yet another comment said: “PMO taking 8 hours to tweet means either Pachauri or Twitter is useless”. In fact, what social media enthusiasts can’t understand is how even a 140-word tweet by the PMO needs to be sanctioned through a sarkari mechanism. Anyway, the much waited tweet finally arrived, but it ended abruptly, and even meaninglessly. PMO tweet said: “We welcome the fact that both the learned Judges have completely vindicated the Prime Minister whilst appreciating the onerous duties…”. The Twitter veterans failed to understand whose duties were appreciated by the judges.
BoI then managed to get the entire PMO statement. It says: “We welcome the fact that both the learned Judges have completely vindicated the Prime Minister whilst appreciating the onerous duties of his office. The Government is examining their directions regarding the manner in which applications for sanctions are to be dealt with.”
But did the judges actually appreciate the onerous duties of the PM’s office? And more significantly, who will interpret this landmark judgement correctly and impartially?

Apex Court questions appointment of pilot Shashank Shekhar as UP cabinet secretary

THE Supreme Court’s questioning of the appointment of a non-IAS, Shashank Shekhar Singh, as cabinet secretary of Uttar Pradesh will make IAS officers across the country happy and cheerful. The Apex Court, hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Singh’s appointment, said there have to be rules and regulations for such key postings.

A close confidante of UP chief minister Mayawati and former pilot who had flown a number of CMs including VP Singh and ND Tiwari, Shashank Shekhar Singh holds a unique post called cabinet secretary and enjoys the rank of a cabinet minister. Singh was appointed in the coveted post soon after Mayawati came into power almost five years ago. Though the state government in an order placed the post of the cabinet secretary at par with the state chief secretary who is always an IAS officer, cabinet secretary Singh in all practical purposes wields more power than the state chief secretary. Singh was to retire in May 2010, but Mayawati gave him a two-year extension.

Shashank Shekhar Singh, however, is not a new player in Lucknow’s corridors of power. In 1979, he became a state pilot but was soon promoted as director of state civil aviation. Later, he moved up the ladder to become principal secretary to CM for several CMs. According to the insiders in Mayawati government, Singh virtually runs the state government and the chief secretary is a mere subordinate in all practical purposes.

After the PIL was taken up by the Apex Court, the department of personnel and training (DoPT) which is the cadre-controlling authority of the IAS, said in an affidavit on Monday that the appointment “undermined” the established system and “demoralized” the IAS officers of the state. A bench hearing the case said people like Sam Pitroda, who are an expert in the technical field, are appointed as adviser but for posts like that of cabinet secretary, there have to be proper procedures.

The case turned out to be a high-profile one as the PIL petitioners, Harish Chandra Pandey and Amrendra Nath Tripathi, were represented by noted advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Gopal Subramanium, who quit the post of Solicitor General of India rather unceremoniously a few months ago, represented Shashank Shekhar Singh. 
Also Read
Mamata's key man Gautam Sanyal upsets IAS power

Government asks information officers not to “create information” for RTI applicants

IN WHAT could impact RTI replies in coming days, the government has advised its public information officers not to “create information”, “interpret information”, “solve problems raised by applicants” or “furnish replies to hypothetical questions”. In a letter dated September 16, 2011, the department of personnel and training (DoPT) drew attention of a Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby it says: “Only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority”.

The RTI which till recently was packaged as a major milestone of the UPA government in bringing transparency into the system, has begun to trouble the UPA. The recent finance ministry note on P Chidambaram’s role in 2G spectrum auction was procured from the Prime Minister’s Office through an RTI application. In many offices, a number of employees are dealing only with RTI applications, many of which are filed for personal reasons and not for public good.

The government’s recent letter on how to deal with RTI applications came as a sequel to the observation made by the Supreme Court in a case between Central Board of Secondary Education and Aditya Bandopadhaya and others (civil appeal no 6454 of 2011). The Supreme Court’s observation is as follows:

“At this juncture it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing….But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast any obligation upon the public authority, to collect and collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumption. It is not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the definition of “information” in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to its citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Action and Appointments

a) The government has approved inter-cadre deputation of Ms Indra Mallo Jain, a 1999 batch Maharashtra cadre IAS from Maharashtra cadre to AGMUT cadre (Arunachal Pradesh) for a period of five years.

b) The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) rejected the proposal for extension of inter-cadre deputation of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, a 1988 batch Uttarakhand cadre IAS from Uttarakhand to Punjab cadre for a period up to December 31, 2011. 

SC takes up petition of 83 former bureaucrats on civil services reforms

AS MANY as 83 distinguished Indian bureaucrats with a combined work experience of about 2,500 man-years are pinning hopes that a court verdict could put in place a mechanism that would insulate bureaucrats from political pressure. Former Union cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian and 82 other distinguished ex-bureaucrats petitioned in Supreme Court seeking urgent administrative reforms. Last Friday, a Supreme Court bench issued notice to the Central and state governments after showering praises on the petitioners that they raised some important questions.

Petitioners include ex-ambassador to US Abid Hussain, ex-CECs TSK Murthy and N Gopalaswamy, former Delhi police chief Ved Marwah, National Advisory Commission member and 1964 batch IAS NC Saxena, former ambassador to UN Arundhati Ghose, former Trai chairman Nripendra Misra, ex-IB director Arun Bhagat, ex-finance secretary Ajit Kumar, former Maruti MD Jagdish Khattar to name a few.

The petitioners want creation of independent Civil Services Boards or Commissions both at the Centre and state and fixed tenures for civil servants mainly to minimize political pressure on bureaucracy. They also wanted judiciary to direct that every civil servant formally records all instructions received from administrative and political superiors.

Whereas the government has made many a half-hearted attempt to bring in administrative reforms and insulate civil servants from their political masters, a judicial intervention may create a fool proof system.

Read BoI Surveys on bureaucracy

Only 9% says bureaucrats are excellent

Singapore has the best bureaucrats 

Action and Appointments

a) Girish Shankar, a 1982 batch Bihar cadre IAS has been appointed as joint secretary in the department of food and public distribution in place of Rakesh Garg, a 1980 batch UP cadre IAS who has been appointed as additional secretary in the ministry of culture.

b) Devinder Kumar Bhalla, a 1986 batch Nagaland cadre IAS has been appointed as joint secretary in department of food and public distribution in place of Nilanjan Sanyal, a 1979 batch Orissa cadre who has been appointed as additional secretary in the ministry of women and child development.

Who is PJ Thomas? Supreme Court quashes CVC's appointment

WITH the Supreme Court quashing the appointment of PJ Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner, the government now faces many an unanswered question regarding Thomas’ appointment. The apex court rejected the contention of the government that the appointment of the CVC cannot be brought under judicial review.

Apart from serving as chief secretary of Kerala between September 18, 2007 to January 22, 2009, Thomas had served as secretary in the ministry of Parliamentary Affairs between January 2009 and September 2009 and then as secretary in the Department of Telecom. He was also a strong contender for the cabinet secretary’s post, but it did not materialize when incumbent KM Chandrasekhar got an extension in May 2010.  

Profile of PJ Thomas

Service: IAS

Cadre: Kerala

Batch: 1973

Date of Birth: January 13, 1951

Place of Domicile: Kerala

Mother Tongue: Malayalam

Educational Qualifications

a) Graduate (Physics, chemistry and match) First div

b) PG in Physics, First div

c) PG in Economics, Second division

Major Postings

a) District Magistrate (Deputy secretary level), Ernakulam

(From June 1, 1982 to April 1, 1984)

b) Secretary (Deputy secretary level)

Finance (From April 1, 1984 to July 1, 1985)

c) Chief Electoral Officer (Joint secretary level)

State Election Commission

(From February 1, 1998 to January 22, 2005)

d) Principal secretary (Additional secretary level)

Human Resource Development

(From January 22, 2005 to September 13, 2005)

e) Director, Additional secretary level, IIM

(From September 13, 2005 to February 1, 2006)

f) Additional chief secretary, Human Resource Development

(From February 1, 2006 to September 17, 2007)

g) Chief secretary (secretary level) Kerala

September 18, 2007 to January 22, 2009)

h) Secretary, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, New Delhi

(From January 23, 2009 to September 30, 2009)

g) Secretary, Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications & Info Tech, New Delhi

(From October 1, 2009)

h) Appointed as CVC on September 3, 2010

Foreign Training

One year course in public administration at IIPA, Paris (1987)

Babus under check: File notings to be in public domain; officials may face jail term

THE government officials need to be much more careful in file notings as those are already in public scrutiny under the RTI. Central Information Commission chief Wajahat Habibullah’s summoning of DoPT joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under RTI provisions, is a case in point. According to reports in a leading newspaper, the erring officials could also face a year in jail. In fact, DoPT refused to correct the information in its website that file notings were not part of information that could be disclosed under the RTI. The Supreme Court has already accepted the CIC’s ruling that file notings were not exempt from disclosure, said the media reports. If CIC becomes aggressive, as this case has demonstrated, the loopholes of the RTI may soon be plugged, leading to the disclosure of many facts which officers would not have like to be on public domain.

Govt’s Second Innings Bonanza: Take casual leave during LTC, encash 10 days of earn leaves Here’s a good piece of news for all government employees including the officers. Government servants will now be allowed to encash earned leave upto 10 days at the time of availing Leave Travel Concession (LTC) even if they don’t take leaves for a similar number of days, a DoPT circular dated June 3, 2009, clarified. That means even if an employee takes just four days off to avail of the LTC, that too casual leaves, he may claim encashment of 10 days of leaves. Earlier, the encashment was possible subject to the condition that earned leave of at least an equivalent duration is also availed of by the Government servants simultaneously. The DoPT received a number of references from various ministries to waive this condition citing practical problems faced by them as the facility of LTC was also admissible while availing Casual Leave, the circular further said. “The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and it has now been decided to permit Government servants encashment of earned leave upto 10 days at the time of availing LTC without any linkage to the number of days and the nature of leave availed while proceeding on LTC,” the clarification said.