Southern States - Tamil Nadu   

Centre should hear objections, says Tribunal

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI DEC. 17. The three IPS officers _ whose services the Union Government requisitioned for Central deputation in July 2001 _ should be issued advance notices and it should hear their objections before drafting them on deputation, the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled.

Pointing out that the July 27, 2002 Home Ministry communication seeking the State's concurrence of the deputation was not a final order, the Bench said: "If any final order is passed adverse to the applicants (the Inspectors-General of Police, K. Muthukaruppan and S. George, and the Deputy Commissioner, Christopher Nelson) they will be entitled to challenge it in accordance with the law".

The Bench, comprising the Vice-Chairman, S.S. Subramani, and the administrative member, S. Manickavasagam, disposed of the original application by these officials saying, "in case the Union Government wants the services of the applicants on deputation, it should follow the cadre rules and various instructions issued from time to time". However, "we hold that the petition is premature since no final order has been passed by the Union Government".

While Mr. Muthukaruppan said he had been debarred from being considered for any Central deputation for five years, Mr. Nelson contended that his cooling off period was not yet over.

They also alleged that they had been asked to go on deputation only at the instance of the Union Ministers, Murasoli Maran and T.R. Baalu, "who have sought to wreak vengeance in view of the incident that happened on June 30, 2001, when the former Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, was arrested".

The State Government filed a counter-affidavit stating the Centre had not obtained its concurrence and failed to follow the procedures while transferring the petitioner-officials on deputation.

However, the Additional Solicitor-General of India, V.T. Gopalan, submitted that the impugned communication was not a final order. Hence the question whether the procedures under Rule 6 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules 1954 and the instructions were followed or not was not to be considered at this stage. Any adjudication at this juncture would tantamount to the Tribunal taking the role of the Centre and deciding whether the overriding power of the Centre under Rule 6 had to be exercised or not in the case.

Accepting the submission, the Bench observed, "the preliminary objections raised by the Union Government had to be sustained... The fax message is only a communication and not a final decision. In view of the finding, the fax message cannot be implemented".

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Partymen want Jayalalithaa as PM
• Tannery effluents continue to pollute Palar
• Allowance up for meal centres
• Coimbatore panchayat turns a role model
• TN will get lion's share from Koodankulam power
• NLC thermal station unit dedication today
• 'Re-establish contact with masses'
• Centre should hear objections, says Tribunal
• Free cycles for 10,177 more SC/ST girls

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu