NEW DELHI, February 23: The Delhi High Court today rapped the Centre for its ``casual approach'' in a case regarding extensions to 12 top bureaucrats, including Cabinet Secretary T S R Subramaniam, and asked the Election Commission (EC) whether grant of such extensions violated the model code of conduct.A division bench comprising Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice M K Sharma rejected an application filed by the Central Government, seeking the modification of the court's February 9 order directing the government to produce records pertaining to the extensions granted to top bureaucrats in a sealed cover.
The bench directed the Government to place the records pertaining to extensions in service granted to Subramaniam, Water Resources Secretary Mata Prasad, CBI director D R Karthikeyan, Intelligence Bureau Chief Arun Bhagat, Foreign Secretary K Raghunath, Secretary to Prime Minister T K A Nair and former home secretary K Padmanabhaiah. The records have to be placed in a sealed cover on February 27.
Thebench asked EC its view on ``whether extensions can be granted to top officials by a caretaker government while the election process is on'' and posted the matter for further hearing on March 4. A petition by K S Banodula had challenged the one year extension granted to Mata Prasad, alleging the Government's decision was arbitrary and violative of the model code of conduct.
The High Court also sought records pertaining to extensions granted to former CBI director R C Sharma, Secretary National Human Rights Commission R V Pillai, Additional Secretary (Culture) R L Sudhir, Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary K A Nambiar, Rajasthan Chief Secretary M L Mehta and Director General of Bihar Police S K Saxena.
Referring to the modification application filed on Saturday, the bench said, ``It is really strange that the Union Government is conducting itself in the most casual manner, which is apparent not only from what is stated above but also from the filing of this application at a late stage.''
The court rejectedGovernment counsel Rakesh Tiku's contention that it should peruse the files of extension given to Prasad and not other bureaucrats as only Prasad's extension was challenged. The bench asked why the caretaker government gave only three month's extension to Subramaniam while giving a one year extension to Prasad and questioned the rationale behind it.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
