Centre was vindictive towards Magsaysay award winner Sanjiv Chaturvedi: SC

Imposes additional cost of Rs 25,000 against the Centre on top of existing Rs 25,000 cost imposed by Uttarakhand HC

The Supreme Court has imposed a Rs 25,000 cost on the Centre upholding a Uttarakhand high court order which had found the Union government ‘vindictive’ towards Magsaysay award winner, Sanjiv Chaturvedi who served as the chief vigilance officer at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

The cost imposed by Supreme Court comes as an addition to an existing cost imposed by the Nainital High Court in 2018 when it held the Central government to be vindicated against the whistleblower officer.

The case pertains to the health ministry giving a zero rating in the 2015-16 annual appraisal of the officer who had unearthed several scams involving senior officials, for which he had also given the Magsaysay award. Till that year he had been graded as outstanding for five consecutive years and commended on record by the health minister and health secretary for his work.

A zero rating in any annual appraisal leads to long-term damaging impacts on the career of a government officer. Chaturvedi is an Indian Forest Service Office who at the time was working as the head of the anti-corruption investigations in AIIMS.

In 2015-16 Chaturvedi was zero-rated with the approval of the AIIMS director and the Union health minister, J P Nadda – who had even as an ordinary Member of Parliament asked for the officer’s removal from the anti-corruption division and a halt to all graft probes he was conducting. This zero rating included assessing and rating him zero for ‘wildlife investigations’ even though he was posted as the vigilance officer at AIIMS and not in charge of any area concerning forestry and wildlife. By the time Chaturvedi received his appraisal report, he had repatriated to serve in Uttarakhand state government.

He pleaded against the bad appraisal to the Uttarakhand High Court. The high court, in turn, asked him to approach the Nainital branch of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The tribunal is where most of the personnel-related issues of central government officers are first heard. Officers are required to file plea before the bench of the tribunal where he or she is currently serving – in this case Uttarakhand. The tribunal gave interim relief to Chaturvedi stating, “It is directed that if any matter related to the career progression of the applicant comes up for consideration before the terms of the impugned orders shall not be taken into account.”

But at a time that Chaturvedi had been sent out of the country by the government on a tour, it along with AIIMS pleaded before the principal bench of the tribunal that the case be heard in Delhi. The CAT chairperson L Narsimha Reddy on his own in an ex-parte order stayed on-going proceedings in the Nainital bench of the tribunal. Chaturvedi went back to the high court against this decision. The High Court held up Chaturvedi’s plea. It said, “The order passed by the Chairman (of CAT) while sitting singly is whole without jurisdiction. The attitude of the respondents towards petitioner, prima facie, is vindictive. “The respondent in the case was the Union government.

The Union government along with AIIMS pleaded in October 2018 before the Supreme Court to quash the High Court judgement. It claimed that the high court had not even heard its side of the story while passing the judgement and the CAT chairperson was right in staying the Nainital tribunal orders.

But on February 1, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Union government’s case. It has upheld the Uttarakhand High Court orders that found the Union government vindictive against Sanjiv Chaturvedi and imposed yet another cost of Rs 25,000 against it. It said, “The Chairman, as the Chief Justice of the Higher Courts or the Chief Judge of subordinate courts, may be higher in order of protocol and may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities. However, the Chairman, acting judicially, is equal to any other Member.”

It added, “The Chairman, being one amongst equals, could not have stayed proceedings pending before a larger Bench. We find no grounds to interfere with the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court rightly allowed the writ petition with costs.”