 "Bureaucrats singed by political heat in Delhi")
What he hadn’t anticipated was what followed the next morning. As Joshi got ready to go to office and relinquish charge as member (finance) of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, he noticed that the official vehicle assigned to him had not arrived. He called up the driver and his personal secretary to learn that the vehicle had been attached to the garage.
Joshi isn’t amused. “The Delhi government flouted all services rules. According to the norms, it must give an officer three months’ notice before repatriating him to his parent cadre. I was not given any such notice.” Joshi subsequently filed a police complaint against three officials, who are supposedly close to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, for obstructing a government officer from discharging his duties.
More From This Section
Joshi says it all started after a journalist-turned-politician called him with a request to accommodate some AAP volunteers in the Delhi Dialogue Commission, a recommendatory body under the chairmanship of Kejriwal. The other members include Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Chief Secretary K K Sharma and secretary to the chief minister Rajendra Kumar. Joshi held the additional charge of member secretary to the Commission.
“When I refused citing problems, he told me that stood relinquished from my charge with immediate effect. I asked him for written orders and within an hour of his call, I received another one from a close aide of the chief minister asking me not to come to office from the next day,” Joshi alleges.
Kejriwal, his media advisor Nagendar Sharma and the said politician didn’t reply to email, phone calls, text and Twitter messages, despite repeated attempts to get their responses on Joshi’s case and other allegations.
The state government, however, refuted the allegations in a press statement issued on May 9. “Normally the government does not react to insinuations by individuals, but in the present case, since the officer concerned has been running a systematic vilification campaign against the Delhi government based on false allegations and twisted facts, the government has decided to make a public statement,” it said. “There are clear instances of multiple violations of these rules by this officer, which have now been duly communicated to his parent cadre.”
Clearly, all is not well between the AAP government and its bureaucrats.
A storm in the making
Senior officials, who spoke to Business Standard on condition of anonymity, say the tension between the bureaucrats and the AAP ministers started building up soon after the new government was sworn in on February 14.
It began with the removal of Principal Secretary (home) Arvind Ray, who reportedly refused to disclose the contents of a file to the chief minister citing certain rules. Ray was kept without a portfolio for weeks.
What irked the bureaucrats the most was the alleged interference of AAP volunteers in their work. These men apparently landed up in the offices of senior bureaucrats and ask ed them about the work undertaken by them in the past one week. “They would say that they had been sent by the chief minister’s office. In one instance, a young AAP volunteer angered a high-ranking official in the health department to the extent that the officer had to actually go and complain to the chief secretary,” says an officer. Business Standard could not independently confirm these insinuations.
Though the interference of the AAP volunteers soon ceased, it was Chief Secretary Sharma’s turn to face the heat — this despite Kejriwal’s hard bargaining with the Union home ministry to appoint Sharma, a 1983-batch Indian Administrative Services officer, to the post.
Three senior officers independently confirm that Kejriwal had reprimanded Sharma in front of junior officers and others for bypassing his instructions to route all files related to the transfer and postings of senior police officers. According to the norms, the Delhi Police commissioner sends a list to the chief secretary, who passes it to Lt Governor for necessary approvals. Kejriwal also pulled up Principal Secretary (home) Dharampal.
An upset Sharma met Najeeb Jung, the Lt Governor, who reportedly advised Kejriwal against such behaviour.
Matters worsened when Jung appointed Shakuntala Gamlin, a 1984-batch IAS officer, as the acting chief secretary. Gamiln’s appointment was not without controversy.
Controversy continues
On May 13, Sharma, through Principal Secretary (services) Anindo Majumdar, suggested four names — Naini Jayaseelan, Sanjay Pratap Singh, Arvind Ray and Gamlin — to Kejriwal for consideration as acting chief secretary. While Jayaseelan declined, Kejriwal and Sisodia rejected the names of Singh and Ray. Sisodia further noted “We may choose from amongst Gamlin and Parimal Rai. I propose Parimal Rai.” Kejriwal noted: “I agree.”
Jung, however, preferred Gamlin to Rai, who is a batch junior to her.
But hours before her appointment as acting chief secretary, Gamlin wrote to Jung alleging that a senior officer in Kejriwal’s office had asked her to pull out of the race or else she would be exposed. Gamlin’s appointment on May 15 didn’t go well down with the state government. In an unprecedented move, it issued a press statement raising question regarding her integrity and accused Jung of bypassing the chief minister and the deputy chief minister. “She (Gamlin) was perceived to be extremely close to electricity companies in Delhi and for lobbying for their interests within the government,” said the statement. “However, the Lt Governor appointed Gamlin to this position in a completely unconstitutional manner.”
The following morning, Majumdar, who had signed Gamlin’s order, found his office locked on the orders of Kejriwal. He was replaced by Kejriwal’s secretary, Kumar.
A senior officer says the bureaucrats are divided on the developments. A section favouring Kejriwal lobbied to delay the meeting of IAS officers of the Union Territories cadre to deliberate on the issue. “In the meeting, Gamlin broke down over the treatment meted out to her. Many officers, too, expressed their resentment and condemned the character assassination of Gamlin and others,” says the official who took part in the meeting.
The situation was aptly described by Amitabh Kant, secretary, industrial policy & promotion, in the Union government, through a tweet. “Thank God I am not posted with the Delhi government. Imagine the plight of officers. Rooms [are] getting locked without notice. [It] will lead to collapse of morale.” The tug of war led to Kejriwal directing the officers not to follow the instructions of Jung, and Jung insisting that he was the final authority in deciding the appointment of secretaries.
On May 21, the Union home ministry issued a notification that supported Jung and clearly defined the division of powers between the two authorities. The notification, citing Article 239 AA of the Constitution, suggests that the Lt Governor is the administrator of Delhi and is the competent authority in any case case of “public order, land and police”. The notification also clarified that All India Services such as IAS and IPS fall in Jung’s domain.
That did not stop the Delhi government from transferring officers. On May 27, it appointed Majumdar as the chairman & managing director of Delhi Finance Commission and Rai as principal secretary (social welfare). It also shifted Virender, a lower division clerk, from deputy commissioner southeast Delhi to the power department. This was the first time that a clerk was included in the list of senior IAS officers.
Now that the Delhi High Court, in an interim order, has ruled in the favour of Jung and the Union home ministry, it will be difficult for Kejriwal and his council of ministers to exercise much control over the bureaucrats. The High Court on Friday remarked that the Delhi government’s proposal on the appointment of senior bureaucrats must be studied by Jung. “If the Lt Governor wants any clarification regarding the interim proposal, then he may ask for it,” said the court, refusing to stay the Union home ministry’s notification, according to a report in India Today.
“It may become a serious constitutional crisis if AAP decides to approach the Supreme Court. In any case, it is advantage AAP. If it wins, it can bargain for more powers. If it loses, it will get the opportunity to blame the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government for its failure,” says a seasoned bureaucrat.