Plea in court against Government order on DVAC probe

The first bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh, on hearing that the GO, rather than being in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment, is in fact contemptible, directed the petitioner to file a counter within two weeks. The bench then posted the case for further hearing to March 18. 

The case has its origin in 2010, when advocate Pugalendi moved a PIL to quash orders of the state government, which conferred special privileges and treatment to All India Service Officers (AISO) working in Tamil Nadu against corruption charges. He had submitted that such a special treatment to a particular section is arbitrary and amounted to breach of public duty by the State. 

Citing the Supreme Court order, which declared Section 6A (1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, requiring approval of the Central government to conduct inquiry into any offence, committed by Joint Secretary and officers above that level, as invalid, the Madras High Court on October 7, 2015, urged the State to revisit and evolve a non-discriminatory policy. 

Based on this, the State came up with a GO on February 2, which said “allegations of corruption against public servants, irrespective of rank or group, the DVAC shall forward the complaints to the Vigilance Commission. The commission in turn shall seek and consider remarks of the government before ordering an inquiry by the DVAC.”

Pugalendi who moved the present plea submitted that the benefit of government approval, limited to all-India level officers, has now been extended to all government officers, including public servants, which is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment. He beseeched the High Court to take suo motu cognisance of contempt in this regard.