JAMMU, Sep 11: A question come into picture Why cannot a Minister or Bureaucrats be termed "Dead Wood" if they donot meet the work output requirements. In past number of Officilas have been retired after being termed "Dead wood". Similarly Hon'ble Court has retired number of Judges on the basis of same.
Government itself ordered so many policy, which speaks in papers for the benefit of general public but nobody bothers to verify on ground that whether it is being implemented by the officers or not.Had Government ever verified that acts/laws/orders passed by Govt. are being implemented with letter & spirit by the officers & non implementation of these should be taken seriously & the defaulting officers be taken to task, shall definatly talk that Government seriously wanted to implement it.
When one officer was contacted, he told that how the corruption stopped because we have to pay money for their transfers/postings. Government itself violates its transfer policy because Government transfer the officers at any time in violation of its own transfer policy. It has been noticed by the CTN that Minister are transferring officers at their own choice without completion of tenure, which can be openly termed as corruption. Corruption cannot be only termed as transaction in cash or kind, it can be termed as stop/delay the work of someone.
It can be safely concluded that when officers are every time afraid of transfer/posting, how they can work with zeal & dedication due to panic of transfer industry established by the concerned Ministers. Why not such Ministers, who transfer any officer before the time frame fixed by the Govt. for the vested considerations be removed as dead wood to teach a lesson to other Ministers shall definitely bring some change in the system but who will dare to remove such corrupt Minister as this can be done with lower cadre employees only.
Supreme Court of India clearly defines dead woods in judgment passed in State Of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel as mentioned below:-
The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead- wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
As such, it is the need of the day to be looked up by the new Chief Secretary of the state that whether before passing an order of Compulsory retirement of innocents, above stated things are taken into consideration if not defaulting officers be taken to task& TAKEN CARE OF IN NEAR FUTURE.