Decide officer's transfer request in 3 weeks: CAT

Tribunal comes down on PM-led committee for not deciding on Sanjiv Chaturvedi's plea to move to Delhi chief minister's office

The Central Administrative Tribunal has passed its third order in eight months against the Prime Minister-led Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) directing it to decide whether whistle-blower officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi (pictured) would be allowed to work as personal staff of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal or not. It has given the committee three weeks to take a final decision.

Delhi’s request and Chaturvedi’s application for transfer from central deputation to the Delhi government have been pending for over a year. Chaturvedi has thrice gone to the tribunal asking that the committee, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi take a final decision on his petition.

He has had a running battle through several court cases with the National Democratic Alliance government on several decisions impacting his career. The NDA government's decision to remove him from the post of chief vigilance officer at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on the request of Bharatiya Janata Party leader J P Nadda, at a time when he had unearthed several corruption cases, triggered the legal tussle. At that time Kejriwal sought his services as personal staff in the office of the Delhi chief minister.

In its first order in November 2015, CAT had directed ACC to decide the matter by January 5, 2016. In its second order in April 2016, the CAT instructed that the environment ministry and the Cabinet secretariat put up Chaturvedi's proposal to the ACC within two weeks and that the two member appointments committee “take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible.”

When the committee did not take a decision, Chaturvedi went back to CAT for the third time. The tribunal has again ordered in his favour, stating, “Surprisingly enough, the respondents (ACC, Cabinet secretariat and environment ministry) have not yet complied with the pointed directions, which necessitated the applicant, to file the present application for time bound disposal of his case of inter-deputation.”

“What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the applicant was compelled to repeatedly approach this tribunal for redressal of his grievance.” It said its previous order directing the ACC to act expeditiously had gone “in vain”.

“Therefore, we are of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice, if the respondents are directed to decide the matter…or the applicant would suffer irreparable loss in this regard,” the tribunal wrote.

In his third petition before the tribunal, Chaturvedi had alleged that the decision was “deliberately and willfully delayed by the committee and the government, first by keeping it pending for eight months and then pressurising the government of Uttarakhand to withdraw the no objection certificate.” Uttarakhand state government did withdraw its mandatory no-objection certificate back once but resent it in Chaturvedi’s favour again.

He presented evidence of other similar petitions for deputation of officers where the government had taken decision within 10-30 days. He alleged that the delay was intended to make his application for transfer turn infructuous by June end when his period of deputation outside parent state (Uttarakhand) comes to an end. The tribunal accepted his pleading that the continued delay by the government would lead to his application falling flat by default.

In its latest order dated June 9 the tribunal has directed that, “The respondents, including the ACC, are directed to decide the matter of inter-cadre deputation of the applicant, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, positively.”