Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The Cabinet Secretariat did not act on complaints by two Election Commissioners against the conduct of a senior officer in the Election Commission, saying the communications were sent in their individual capacities, records released under the Right to Information Act show, according to news agency Press Trust of India.
The Secretariat said action without an official communication from the Election Commission as a whole could be inappropriate and might be seen as interference in the functioning of the constitutional body.
advertisement
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi sent separate letters on July 29 to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan about the functioning of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. Garg, an IAS officer, has been posted in the Commission by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet since September 2, 2024, according to documents provided in an RTI response to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd), PTI reported.
The Indian Express reported in September that Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Somanathan after an internal work allocation order that they said threatened to centralise the Election Commission’s powers to add or delete names and update electoral rolls, instead of allowing state-level officials to perform these functions.
In a statement on September 26, the Election Commission said the work redistribution orders issued by the officer were never implemented following directions from the two Election Commissioners. It also said their letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and were not related to policy or matters involving the information technology division.
A Cabinet note released with the RTI response said: “Both the ECs have stated that Shri Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Admn.), has issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned.”
It added: “Further, the aforementioned ECs have stated that this has happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all concerned officers against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission.”
The Election Commissioners said Garg’s actions clearly violated the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The Cabinet note said acting on complaints made by two Election Commissioners without an official communication from the Commission as a whole could be construed as “interference in the functioning of the constitutional body”.
“The Commission is a Constitutional Body and is insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner. The working and functioning of the Commission are governed by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission,” the note said.
“The above communications are from the ECs in their individual capacity and, while they must be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole,” it added.
The note said that although Garg was appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, he was now an Election Commission officer and his work and conduct were to be regulated and monitored under the Commission’s rules and guidelines.
It also cited Section 18 of the 2023 law, under which the Commission’s business should be conducted unanimously as far as possible, while differences of opinion should be decided by a majority.
“ECs have sent these communications for appropriate action; however, in the absence of any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate. It may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the Constitutional Body,” the note said.
It added: “Hence, it would be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both Election Commissioners with a copy to PPS to CEC for information of CEC.”
A copy of the letter signed by Somanathan was also marked to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training and the Establishment Officer for placing the matter on record. The note said this would “enable it to be taken into account in future decision-making regarding the officer”.
Sandhu and Joshi alleged that Garg revised the allocation of work among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and officers of equivalent rank without discussing the changes with or informing the Commission and the officials concerned.
They said the order was issued despite repeated oral and written instructions that such changes should not be made without prior discussion with or approval from the Commission. Joshi also said the Administration Division did not provide him with the relevant file when he sought it.
Both Election Commissioners said the action went against established practice and violated provisions of the 2023 law. The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged receipt of their letters on August 5 and sent copies to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.
In summary, the Cabinet Secretariat placed the complaints on record but decided against further action because they had been submitted separately by the two Election Commissioners and not as an official communication from the Election Commission as a whole.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
