Back
2003(2) C.G.L.J. 301
HIGH COURT OF CIIHATTISGAIUI, BILASPUR
Shri Fakhruddin & Shri L.C. Bhadoo, JJ.
THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
Versus
STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS
Writ Petition Nos. 3627 & 3628 of 2003
Decided on : 14-11-2003.
ELECTION COMMISSION - DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION - OFFICERS ON DEPUTATION - INTERIM ORDER - JURISDICTION OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - SERVICE MATTERS - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1950 - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 324(1), 324(6).
Fact of the Case:
The Election Commission of India (ECI) issued directives regarding banning the transfer of officers connected with the General Election/Bye Election. The ECI also issued a Code of Conduct for universal application in the States where the Assembly elections were to take place. The District Election Officers (DEOs) and District Collectors of Jashpur and Bastar were accused of violating the Code of Conduct. The ECI sought explanations from the DEOs and District Collectors, and after considering their explanations, directed that they be relieved of their duties as DEOs and District Collectors with immediate effect. The State of Chhattisgarh complied with the ECI's direction and issued orders posting the DEOs and District Collectors to the Mantralaya. The DEOs and District Collectors filed petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the ECI's order and seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The CAT passed an interim order directing that the status quo as existed on the date of the order be maintained. The ECI filed petitions in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, challenging the CAT's interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the ECI has disciplinary jurisdiction over officers on deputation to it, including the DEOs and District Collectors. The Court also held that the CAT has jurisdiction to entertain service matters relating to officers on deputation to the ECI. However, the Court held that the CAT's interim order was not justified as the ECI had already conducted an enquiry and reached a conclusion that the DEOs and District Collectors were guilty of misconduct. The Court further held that the ECI's findings would adversely affect the future prospects of the DEOs and District Collectors, and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of vacating the interim order.
Issues: 1. Whether the ECI has disciplinary jurisdiction over officers on deputation to it, including the DEOs and District Collectors? 2. Whether the CAT has jurisdiction to entertain service matters relating to officers on deputation to the ECI? 3. Whether the CAT's interim order was justified in the circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The ECI has disciplinary jurisdiction over officers on deputation to it, including the DEOs and District Collectors, by virtue of the terms of settlement arrived at between the ECI and the Union of India, which were approved by the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 606 of 1993. 2. The CAT has jurisdiction to entertain service matters relating to officers on deputation to the ECI, as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. The CAT's interim order was not justified in the circumstances of the case, as the ECI had already conducted an enquiry and reached a conclusion that the DEOs and District Collectors were guilty of misconduct, and the balance of convenience lay in favor of vacating the interim order.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the ECI's petitions and set aside the CAT's interim order.
As per Hon'ble Shri Fakhruddin, J.-
1. Both these petitions involve similar questions, as such they have been heard together and being disposed of by common order.
2. The superintendence, directions and control of elections, preparation of Electoral rolls and conduct of all Elections for Parliament and State Legislature of every State vests under Article 324(1) of Constitution of India in Election Commission of India. It is provided that under Article 324(6) of the Constitution of India that the President or the Governor shall when requested by the Election Commission make available to it such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the Election Commission by Article 324(1) of the Constitution.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that by notification issued by the Commission, the State of Chhattisgarh made available the staff including District Collectors/District Magistrate of the District and they have been notified as District Election Officer/District Returning Officer. It is contended that these officers/ in the context of election related work are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission and subject to its disciplinary control. This has been made explicit according to petition under Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act 1950 and Section 28A of the Representation of the People Act 1951.
4. It is submitted that the question of disciplinary jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India over officers under employment of Union of India and Governments of the States, Union Territories was the subject matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 606 of 1993 filed by the Election Commission of India before Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. During pendency of the writ petition with a view to resolving certain differences that had arisen between the Election Commission of India and Union of India discussions were held between the said parties as well as nine other State Governments which were parties to the writ petition. Consequent thereto, certain agreed terms of settlement were arrived at between the Election Commission of India and the Union of India as under :-
"The disciplinary functions of the Election Commission over officers, staff and police deputed to perform election duties shall extend to-
(a) Suspending any officer/official/police personnel for insubordination or dereliction of duty;
(b) Substituting any officer/official/police personnel by another such person, and returning the substituted individual to the cadre to which he belongs, with appropriate report on his conduct'
(c) Making recommendation to the competent authority, for taking disciplinary action, for any act of insubordination or dereliction of duty, while on election duty. Such recommendation shall be promptly acted upon by the disciplinary authority, and action taken will be communicated to the Election Commission; within a period of 6 months from the date of the Election Commission's recommendation.
(d) The Government of India will advise the State Governments that they too should follow the above principles and decisions, since a large number of election officials are under their administrative control. "
5. It is submitted that the above terms of settlement were taken note of by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court and W.P. No. 606/1993 was disposed of in terms of settlement vide order dated 21-9-2000. A copy of which has been field as Annexure P-1. Annexure P-1 is relevant and quoted below :
ORDER
I.A. No.5 of2000 in W.P. (C) No. 606 of 1993
As between the Election Commission of India and the Union of India (the petitioner and the first respondent to the writ petition, it is agreed that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the Terms of Settlement recorded in paragraph (3) of the interim application.
Learned counsel for the election Commission and the Union of India states that the States of Tripura, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Mizoram have accepte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
