Firstly what is wrong with IC(T)'s decision as Secy DoPT ?
Secondly after the "defamed" person lost badly in the Kerala High Court he now seems to be out to get "justice" by a defamation suit in a small causes court.
Here is the relevant text of what the Kerala High Court judgement examined
"I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Shorn off details, the petitioner's contention is that the Selection Committee which had initially recommended him for appointment as Administrative Member in the CAT withdrew their recommendation on the basis of a false report filed by the Intelligence Bureau which was furnished to them by the Joint Secretary (AT) along with Ext.P10 note and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Administrative Member in the CAT. Since the controversy centres round the correctness of the statements in Ext.P10, the relevant portions thereof are extracted below:
"Joint Secretary (AT)
In its meeting held on 11.10.04, the Selection Committee for Vice-Chairman/Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, recommended three persons for appointment as Administrative Member and three persons for appointment as Judicial Member. The Committee also recommended one candidate to be placed on the Waiting List for Administrative Member and one candidate to be placed on the Waiting List for Judicial Member.
2. After seeking approval of MOS (PP) and concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, proposals for the appointment of three Judicial Members and one Waiting List Judicial Member and for the appointment of two Administrative Members and one Waiting List Administrative Member have been forwarded to the ACC. One case of Administrative Member has been under process because a reference was made to the Intelligence Bureau.
3. The IB inquiry process is normally used only in the cases of Members of the Bar who are being considered for posting as Judicial Members. Such IB inquiry is not asked for in the cases of Administrative Members, or of officers of the Judicial Services being considered for Judicial Member because all such persons would have a service record, ACRs etc. The case of Shri James K.Joseph, IA & AS (Retd) was however referred to the IB because Shri. Joseph had taken voluntary retirement from service in May, 1996.
Given the long period that elapsed from his retirement and the absence of vigilance status, ACR dossier, etc. orders of MOS (PP) were obtained in 18.10.04 and the case referred to IB.
4. The IB's comments have been received in note of 17.12.04. The report makes mixed reading. There are references to Shri Joseph's association with the BJP, though having retired from Government service, Shri James K. Joseph is free to take part in political activities. There is also a reference to an ongoing feud between him and Shri.K.J.Alphonse, IAS, on a matter related to the Resurgent Kerala Educational and Charitable Trust, Trivandrum. It should be noted that we have independently received various documents from Shri K.J. Alphonse related to the same matter. It should also be noted that while the complaints against Shri.James K.Joseph are serious, Shri. K.J. Alphonse himself is highly controversial and no judgment can be passed in the matter without a better knowledge of the facts.
5. There is yet another issue mentioned in the IB report which is probably more serious. It is stated that during his posting as Accountant General, Kerala, Shri. Joseph had faced an inquiry in connection with recruitment of some contingency staff from amongst relatives of Class IV staff of the AG Office. The IB report clearly states that the inquiry report in the matter was unfavourable and that Shri.Joseph had consequently proceeded on voluntary retirement.
6. In my view, this is a fairly serious complaint. We do not have details of inquiry report with us, but I do not also think it is worthwhile to make inquiries from the AG's office at this stage. Given the information revealed by the IB report, it seems fairly clear that Shri.James K. Joseph's general reputation is somewhat controversial. In the circumstances, it is recommended that we do not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It should be made clear that the facts brought out by IB were not brought to the attention of the Selection Committee which had before it only a simple CV of Shri. James K. Joseph.
7. We may accordingly seek orders of MOS(PP) to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Since the proposal to appoint the two other Admn. Member and a Waiting List candidate is already in ACC, there should be no difficulty about filling the vacancy with the Waiting List candidate.""
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> Yes that is the one...and then CIC passed a "minutes of meeting" justifying that Prof Nigam will defend IC ANT and CIC will pay the legal expenses.
>
> RTIwanted
>
No comments:
Post a Comment