RAJU NARAYANA SWAMY IAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service allotted to the Kerala Cadre. He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging certain actions relating to the Election Commission of India (for short, "the ECI") discharging him from duties of an Election Observer. The Tribunal concluded the proceedings by dismissing his petition predominantly because, with efflux of time, many of the issues had been settled down. All that remains, and the only issue raised before us on behalf of him today is whether the action taken by the ECI on the basis of the letter of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Kerala addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner on 06.06.2013 is going to have a permanent impact on the petitioner being disabled from being taken as an Election Observer by the ECI. The petitioner's stand shows that the Minister of the Government of Kerala dealing with the Department of Printing and Stationery of which the petitioner is now being the Secretary has expressed that he has no objection to the services of the petitioner being utilized as an Election Observer by the ECI. On a deeper consideration, we think that the Minister of one Department in Government, could have dissuaded himself from expressing anything to that effect because, ultimately, the question of inclusion of the person in a list of probables which the State Government may forward to the ECI, is generated by the General Administration Department under the command of the Chief Minister. The individual opinion of a particular Minister could be treated at best as expression of his views in the matter, which would not be ultimately binding on the authority which will take the decision as to inclusion of a person in such a manner which the State Government would forward to the ECI through the General Administration Department under the command of the Chief Minister.

(2.) WHILE the wording of the Chief Secretary's letter dated 06.06.2013 is sought to be categorized by the petitioner as not one in good taste, but critical of the petitioner's conduct of continued officiation as an Observer under the ECI, we are of the view that the Chief Secretary would have been prompted to write that letter only because, the petitioner was not available to take charge while he was posted as Secretary, GAD(Sainik Welfare Department). We do not see anything further in that letter where a high office would have thought of criticizing the petitioner even without him being heard in that regard. The immediate reaction to that letter of the Chief Secretary only shows that the ECI had thought it fit to send the petitioner back to serve in the State of Kerala having regard to the needs of the State administration. These matters do not, ultimately, cripple or impair, the authority of the ECI to require deployment of officers in connection with election duty. Nor would it stand in the way of the competent authority in Government deciding on all relevant matters while preparing the list of officers for the purpose of election duty, and forwarding it for the consideration of the ECI. We think that the petitioner's apprehension that he would be excluded from future, merely on account of the Chief Secretary's letter dated 06.06.2013 and the ECI's decision dated 13.06.2013 is quite misplaced. We, therefore, see no ground to issue any further orders, either way. The original petition is, therefore, closed.