HC directs TN to file reply in 2 weeks on G.O.

The Madras High Court today directed Tamil Nadu government to file its reply on a PIL challenging the February 2 2016 government order making it mandatory to get remarks from government before ordering an inquiry on corruption charges against public servants, irrespective of service category.
The First bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, refused grant of stay of the Government Order on a petition by advocate P Pugalenthi and listed the matter for further hearing to June 13.
Earlier, Pugalenthi had moved the court seeking a direction to government to treat all public servants, including All India Service officers working in the state, in probing corruption complaints against them as per a Supreme Court ruling.

The petition became infructuous in view of the February 2 G.O.
The G.O. Said that in respect of corruption charges against public servants relating to acts in an official capacity, irrespective of rank or group of public servants, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) should forward complaints to the Vigilance Commission which, in turn, should seek and consider the remarks of government before ordering an appropriate inquiry by DVAC.
The High Court, while passing orders earlier on the petition in the context of an affidavit filed by the Centre, had directed the state government to re-visit the issue and file an affidavit in two weeks.

The state had in its counter stated tht it would arrive at a non-discriminatory policy in investigation procedures of complaints on corruption cases with reference to All India Service officers and other government servants.

The petitioner alleged that government had issued the order even after giving this undertaking before the High Court.
He referred to an apex court order in Subramanian Swamy versus Director of CBI, which declared that Sec 6A(1) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 is unconstitutional.
This section, which stated that previous sanction and approval of the central government is required in the case of corruption complaints filed against the officers in the Joint Secretary and above, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Pugalenthi alleged that though the state had given the undertaking to the High Court, it had now evolved a procedure such that no corruption complaint against any public servant should be probed by DVAC without prior government approval.
He contended that government has no jurisdiction to introduce the requirement of prior approval for probing an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 through a G.O.
He alleged that the state had willfully disobeyed the apex court directives and issued the executive instruction and prayed it be declared null and void.