The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance against what it termed as 'unbridled' and 'unchecked' discretion in civil services, stating that such practices undermine the rule of law and legal certainty while weakening accountability. In a significant development, the court has referred the conduct of an IAS officer, Uttar Pradesh's Additional Chief Secretary (Home), to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further assessment.
Court's Observations During Habeas Corpus Hearing
Justice Vinod Diwakar, while hearing a habeas corpus petition on Wednesday, noted that the officer made a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the authority of the court. The judge referred the officer to the DoPT for an evaluation of his suitability for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The case involved a petition filed by Megha Raikwar of Jhansi, seeking directions to recover her 15-year-old daughter from alleged illegal custody of a private respondent.
Details of the Case
The court was informed that an FIR had been lodged, and the police later filed a charge-sheet. The petitioner alleged that the charge-sheet was based primarily on statements of the accused and did not include the 'real' accused. At an earlier hearing, the high court found that the charge-sheet did not conform to the directions laid down in the Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of UP case, which provided exhaustive guidelines for fair, scientific, and legally sustainable criminal investigations.
In an affidavit filed on February 20, the home department stated that the state proposed to challenge the Subhash Chandra judgment before the Supreme Court and requested the High Court to refrain from passing further orders on implementation or enforcement of those directions until the proposed special leave petition (SLP) was decided. The court deferred the matter and awaited information on the SLP's status. However, despite more than three months passing since February and over a year since the Subhash Chandra judgment, no SLP was filed.
Court's Criticism and Recommendations
The bench observed that the proposed SLP was used by the ACS (Home) as a justification to postpone scrutiny of continued non-compliance, rather than as a bona fide effort to obtain an authoritative determination from the Supreme Court at the earliest. The court emphasized that superior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and performance of subordinates, noting that such responsibility could extend to criminal liability where failures enable corruption, fraud, willful suppression, contempt of government orders, and non-implementation of state policy and programmes.
The High Court recommended that the DoPT evolve a doctrine of 'superior responsibility' to hold senior officers criminally accountable for failure to prevent or punish misconduct by subordinates. By its June 3 order, the court disposed of the petition after the minor girl was recovered by local police and restored to her parents.
