IAS Promotion Scam::: Time for Governor, CM to look into DP
Source: Hueiyen News Service

Imphal, April 26 2013 : It is unfortunate that following the news reports published based purely on the proceedings of a petition filed in the Gauhati Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking justice over alleged denial of promotion to an IAS officer on the ground that his relevant Annual Confidential Records (ACRs) have not been submitted, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur has questioned the integrity of Hueiyen Lanpao.

Hueiyen Lanpao is not at all a party to the case, but the manner in which Hueiyen Lanpao has been dragged into the matter by the Department has compelled us to lay bare everything here to make our stand clear once and for all.

Reacting to the news report under the headline 'IAS promotion scam under CAT scanner � CS directed to depute officer with ACR knowledge' published on April 20, Deputy Secretary (DP) Yumnam Robita wrote a letter charging us not only with indulgence in 'irresponsible journalism' instigated by the officer concerned with malafide intention to tarnish the image and public reputation of the incumbent Chief Secretary and the Department of Personnel but also meticulous threatened to take up legal action against us if we do not issue a corrigendum on the front page to clarify that there is no such scam in IAS promotion.

In a second letter, a rather toned-down version of the first, which was again shot back in response to the follow-up news report on the hearing of the case published under the headline, 'IAS promotion scam: CAT rejects plea for action against HL report' published on April 24, the Deputy Secretary (DP) has requested 'to kindly ascertain the facts from this Department before printing any factually incorrect news item generated by vested interests' while maintaining that in 'the hearing on 23rd April, 2003, CAT, Guwahati has merely asked this Department to issue a Speaking Order and has refused to intervene further in the matter relating to promotion of Shri T Pamei, IAS' .

Here, we would like to raise some simple questions to the Deputy Secretary (DP) as to what she actually means by printing of factually incorrect news by Hueiyen Lanpao in the present case.

If the news report published based purely on the said proceedings of the case which stated that the petitioner after selection to Indian Administrative Service joined the training at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie and on completion of his first phase of professional course was attached as a probationer at Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul (vide no.3/11/95-IAS/DP dated 11th April, 1996), and thereafter got posted as SDO, Tadubi (vide no.3/16/70-MCS/DP (II) dated 4th September, 1997) and that the Government of Manipur after satisfying the duty of the petitioner and his Annual Confidential Report promoted him to the IAS Senior timescale after four years in service, was factually incorrect, then what should be the factually correct one? .

If the simple fact that the petitioner filed an Original Application (No.354 of 2012) before CAT, Gauhati Bench after denial of his promotion to the post of Selection Grade and Supertime Scale for non-submission of his ACR despite completing 16 years in service, and that the Gauhati Bench of CAT had passed an order on December 14, 2012 directing the Respondent no.1 (which incidentally happens to be the incumbent Chief Secretary of the State) for disposing the representation within a period of one month, was wrong, then what should the truth? .

That, following non-compliance of the CAT Gauhati Bench order dated December 4, 2012, the petitioner filed a contempt/execution petition (no.2 of 2013) and accordingly CAT Gauhati Bench issued a notice returnable within four weeks along with a directive for deputing an officer well-versed in the knowledge of ACR in the next hearing of the case which was held on April 23, 2013, was factually incorrect and misleading, then what should be the factually correct one? .

That, Hueiyen Lanpao published a news report in its April 20, 2013 edition on the matter which prompted the Deputy Secretary (DP) to send a letter stating that 'publication of the matter which is under the judicial deliberation without the leave of the concerned Court/Tribunal may entail serious legal consequences', was not factually correct, then what is the correct one, factually? .

Yes, journalists know that CAT is not a forum for filing petition over anything published by any newspaper, but what was the copy of Hueiyen Lanpao, which carried the news report, "IAS promotion scam under CAT scanner � CS directed to depute officer with ACR knowledge", and subsequently became a part of the case dossiers in the file of CAT, Gauhati case, doing in the court during the hearing of the Execution petition on April 23, 2013, if it had not been produced by the officer well-versed in ACR knowledge to plead for taking up necessary action for carrying the said news report? Can the Deputy Secretary (DP) or the 'learned counsel' who appeared on behalf of the respondents deny that? .

As to the 'detailed and specific clarification from the Government of India regarding the case of Shri T Pamei' (said to be in the possession of the Department and of which the Department is willing to share a copy if Hueiyen Lanpao wants, and which, inter-alia, reportedly states that due to the failure of Shri T Pamei to get his ACRs written for the relevant period, it is not possible to promote him to the IAS Selection Grade/Supertime Scale), this should be known to any officer well-versed in the knowledge of ACRs and PARs that there cannot be separate rules for individual cases.

The procedure for submission of ACRs and PARs is same for all.

Under Rule 5 of the AIA (CR) Rules, 1970, it has been clearly stated that, "if the officer reported upon does not submit the ACR after duly completing Part-II within the time schedule prescribed therein, the Reporting Authority shall write the report without the self-assessment and submit to the reviewing authority".

The Deputy Secretary (DP) herself should be well-familiar with this line.

After all, it is for clarification on this same point that she had written to PK Mishra, Secretary of Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt of India on November 2, 2012 .

Last but not least, if the latest order passed by CAT Gauhati Bench in the case hearing on April 23, 2013 which states, "We have heard both the learned counsel.

We have also perused the memorandum of show cause notice dated 04.10.2012 and also reply letter dated 08.10.2012 where the applicant, i.e.petitioner replied to the show cause dated 4.10.2012, which is not a representation.

Having heard the learned counsel, we, in the interest of justice, hereby directed the Respondent no.1 to attend all the points raised in the show cause notice reply dated 8.10.2012 by treating the same as a representation and the respondent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order by taking full clarification of the Govt of India's guidelines within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order", was 'merely' asking for issuing a Speaking order and refusal to intervene further in the matter in the eyes of the Deputy Secretary (DP) of the Government of Manipur, then, we certainly need to rest our case here and speak or write nothing further on it.

Nonetheless, we, at Hueiyen Lanpao, so far as the present issue is concerned, are satisfied in as much as our reports have galvanized the department, which the general public regard as a throwback of the babudom culture permeating the entire Government machinery.

It is for issues like this; we have taken up the cudgel and took it upon ourselves to keep the public informed as 'The Messenger of the Masses'.

We have done our duty and proudly so, despite the perceived intimidation.

Comment