2005 (10) TMI 530 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Transfer of Chief Secretary Amid Transparency Concerns

CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR Versus U.O.I. & ANR

The court directed the State Government to transfer Respondent No.3 from the position of Chief Secretary due to concerns regarding transparency and ... Whether the appointment of Respondent No.3-Ms Neera Yadav as Chief Secretary of Respondent No.2 i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh valid? Issues Involved:1. Legality of the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Chief Secretary.2. Allegations of corruption against Respondent No.3.3. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Maintainability of the writ petition.5. Transparency in the appointment process for sensitive posts.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Appointment of Respondent No.3 as Chief Secretary:The primary issue in the writ petition is the challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner argues that the appointment violates norms set by the Government of India, particularly due to the tainted reputation and pending criminal cases against Respondent No.3. The court notes that the post of Chief Secretary is a key position and emphasizes that the State Government should have awaited the report of the Commission headed by Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas before making such an appointment. The court directs the State Government to transfer Respondent No.3 to another post within her cadre/grade, highlighting the need for transparency in appointments to sensitive posts.2. Allegations of Corruption Against Respondent No.3:The allegations of corruption against Respondent No.3 date back to her tenure as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought sanction to investigate these allegations, leading to the filing of charge sheets. The court acknowledges that the allegations need to be established and refrains from expressing any opinion on their merits as the matter is pending before the Allahabad High Court and the Justice Thomas Commission.3. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The court discusses the protection offered under Section 197 of the Code, which shields public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause. The court clarifies that this protection is limited and applies only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty. The court cites precedents to underline that the applicability of Section 197 does not automatically arise upon the institution of a complaint case and must be evaluated based on the nature of the act and its connection to official duties.4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The respondents argue that the writ petition raises questions of morality and policy decisions, which should not be interfered with by the court. They also contend that a public interest litigation cannot be entertained in relation to service matters and that a writ of quo warranto is not applicable. The court, however, does not delve into the maintainability issue in detail, noting that the petition is an offshoot of an earlier writ petition.5. Transparency in the Appointment Process for Sensitive Posts:The court emphasizes the importance of transparency in the appointment of officers to sensitive posts. It notes that the State Government could have avoided controversy by not appointing Respondent No.3 as Chief Secretary amidst pending inquiries and allegations. The court highlights the need for appointments to be made in a manner that instills confidence and avoids any appearance of bias or impropriety.Conclusion:The court directs the State Government to transfer Respondent No.3 to another post within her cadre/grade and refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against her. The court also requests the Allahabad High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending Criminal Revision No. 2284 of 2004. The court underscores the need for transparency in governmental actions and appointments to sensitive posts.