Saturday, 12 December 2015

SUPREME COURT REACTED EXTRAORDINARILY ON HARASSMENT OF UPRIGHT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

This is a specimen case of how an honest and upright government employee could be harassed by the corrupt administrative machinery and the extra ordinary reaction of the Supreme Court against it. Supreme Court vide its order dated 17/11/2015, directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to a Government employee within a period of three months from the date of order towards compensation for the wrong done by the State.

Now the question remains, what action is taken against the real culprits including the PIL petitioner who had done these mischiefs? There is no direction from the Supreme Court in this regard. Also there is no direction regarding who to bear the burden of compensation i.e., the tax payers or the politicians or their sycophants who had perpetuated the crime. Whether any departmental action is taken against the bureaucrats who sided with the politicians and tortured a clean officer. Whistle blower protection act is only a show piece legislation just to eye wash.

(Author note: I am also a similar victim. One case is explained in detail in my book “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” www.amazon.in/dp/9352353986. I issued notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for compensation at two occasions. But I did not pursue it further.)

Below is the details of the case:

A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, an Indian Forest Service Officer who rendered services to the UP State and Government of India in various positions for about 35 years till his retirement.  The main contention of the petitioner was that he was illegally detained by the respondent authorities after implicating him in false vigilance cases and dishonouring the High Court’s directions.  Because of the malicious, wilful and contemptuous acts of the State and clear abuse of legal process, he and his family members had to suffer a great ordeal of mental agony and heavy financial loss besides being defamed in the society. Hence he petitioned to the Supreme Court (he appeared before the SC in person) to express displeasure over the violation of his family members’ fundamental rights and to direct the respondent to pay compensation for the loss of his professional career, reputation and for causing mental agony.

The relevant facts were that he had rendered about 35 years’ service to the State of U.P. and the Government of India, with an unblemished record.  He became a Member of the National Board for Wild Life on 22nd September, 2003.  The then Chief Minister of the respondent State wanted the petitioner to take necessary steps so as to get the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh District de-notified by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th October, 2003. As the petitioner did not comply with the directions, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in the guise of a complaint by the MLA of his own party against the petitioner, issued directions to the Director General, Vigilance Establishment of the State to initiate a vigilance enquiry against him. Finally he was removed from his post.  The petitioner moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 to declare that the vigilance enquiry against him was done in clear violation of the prescribed procedure.  The High Court by orders dated 30th January, 2004 and 14th September, 2007 directed the State Vigilance Committee to carry out the enquiry proceedings, but the respondent did not comply with the directions of the High Court. Thereafter also he was harassed by way of filing PIL and FIR against him, raiding his house, arresting him, suspending him etc. He was finally discharged from the Court proceedings, the petitioner had written a letter to the Chief Minister seeking an amount of Rs.4½ crores towards compensation and damages. 


Finally the SC has held “this Court is reluctant in determining or granting any compensation while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, but advises the parties to approach the competent Courts for adjudicating those issues.  However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the age and trauma suffered by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in jail and fought the legal battle for about a period of 10 years before various forums and more particularly in the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the petitioner, we deem it fit that a lump sum amount of Rs.10 lakhs be awarded as compensation to the petitioner on all forms. Accordingly, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three months towards compensation. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.”
(Ref: SC WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.933 OF 2014 Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH V/S STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY)

Read my book,'A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION'. For details, go to link:
https://www.facebook.com/afraudintheindianconstitution

Also read  my other blogs and website:
indiantravelexperience.manjaly.net
cagreport.manjaly.net
publiccause.manjaly.net



No comments:

Post a comment