Threat to go on mass casual leave today after AAP govt suspends 3
The AAP government, which is already at loggerheads with IAS officers, has now earned the wrath of Danics officers after three of their colleagues were placed under suspension in separate matters. The Danics Officers Association held an emergency meeting in which they called upon their colleagues to proceed on a day’s casual leave on Thursday to mark their protest against the suspensions. The power to suspend any of the 250-odd Danics officers, who form the backbone of the administrative machinery, is either with the Union home ministry or lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung.
If the officers continue with their protest it might badly affect the implementation of the AAP government’s ambitious 15-day odd-even scheme, beginning January 1, to curb pollution. IAS officers will also protest on the issue on Thursday. The first one to face the AAP government’s wrath was deputy commissioner (transport) Shantanu Roy Biswas in connection with the transport scam in which auto permits had been issued in gross violation of the rules.
The point put forward by the association in defence of Mr Roy, an ad hoc Danics officer, is that he was on election duty when the LOI’s for auto permits were issued. “So the question of his involvement in the scam does not arise at all,” a senior officer said.
On Tuesday, the government suspended two home department Danics officers — Yashpal Garg and Subhash Chandra — for reportedly not following PWD minister Satyendra Garg’s directions on the pay revision of the ex-cadre staff in Delhi prisons and prosecuting officers working under the Directorate of Prosecution of the Delhi administration.
A copy of a document detailing the movement of the files related to the pay-scale revision issue, accessed by this newspaper, clearly shows that the minister had been mounting pressure on his officers to issue pay-revision orders despite Mr Jung’s strong reservations on the matter. It was at 10.30 am on Monday that a copy of the decision of the council of ministers, issued through a letter dated December 26, was received by the general administration department. An hour later, the special secretary (home-1) submitted the file to the principal secretary (home) suggesting that in view of earlier directions of the LG, before issuance of orders in accordance with the decision dated December 23 of the council of ministers, the LG may kindly be apprised.
The document said that at 3.50 pm the principal secretary (home) submitted the file to the minister that the decision of the Cabinet in two paras do not appear to be in conformity with one another. It said that in one para the Cabinet decision was clear that should the LG not be in agreement, the decision cannot be implemented.
