24.5.15

The Delhi Jung

Throwing its weight behind Delhi lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung in his tussle with chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Centre unambiguously declared that he was not obliged to heed the AAP government on bureaucratic postings and transfers.
By a notification issued just after midnight on Thursday , the Centre emphasized that in matters concerning central services-that is IAS, IPS, DANICS and DANIPS cadres--the LG's discretion is paramount, thus rebuffing CM Kejriwal's contention that lieutenant governor Jung could not act independently of the state government in matters concerning transfers and postings of central officers deputed to the Delhi government.
Significantly, the notification also made it clear that the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) police station of Delhi government was restricted only to the employees and officers of the state government and did not extend to “officers, employees and functionaries of the central government“.
The notification eliminated the room for any possible action by the Kejriwal backed department against anyone who is not part of the state government.
Finance minister Arun Jaitley on Friday said the notification was meant to “remove“ all confusion regarding governance in the national Capital and help the AAP government run the city efficiently. Stating that the tussle over distribution of powers was not political but a constitutional one, Jaitley told a press conference that “the circular issued by the home ministry is a clarificatory one... we do not want that due to confusion, offices get locked“.
During the earlier 49-day tenure of AAP, ACB had raised many eyebrows when it lodged an FIR against the Union petroleum minister, senior officers of the petro leum ministry as well as Reliance Industries Limited for allegedly hurting consumers by rigging natural gas price. This is the second time that the Modi government has made it clear that ACB's powers are restricted to employees of Delhi government alone.
The first clarification came in July last year but was deemed inadequate because it did not specifically spell out that the jurisdiction will not extend to “employees, officers and functionaries“ of the Union government.

No comments: