06/08/2010
Judge's poem on govt laziness
New Delhi The Delhi High Court thinks the morning prayers of around a third of the government employees go something like this:
"Prabhu chakri aisi dijiye, kaam kachu na hoye; Muh manga vetan mile, har din chutti hoye."
(Lord, give me a job which requires no work to be done. Make sure the wages are as I wish and everyday is a holiday.)
The High Court made this damning indiction of government officials, saying around 30 per cent of the cases filed by them were basically clamours for "higher wages, more holidays and desire to do no work".
Dismissing a plea by an Intelligence Bureau officer punished for unauthorised absence from duty, Justice Pradeep Nandarajog said such behaviourial impropriety could be seen only in India.
"We express anguish at the fact that nearly 10 per cent of the service matters dealt with by us pertain to the misdemeanour of unauthorised absence. With impunity government servants proceed on self-determined leave for months and years together... Nearly 5 per cent of the service matters pertain to the grievance that less wages are being paid and 15 per cent pertain to disciplinary action for lack of devotion to duty. The clamour for higher wages, more holidays and desire to do no work is reflected, very sadly, in these petitions," said the Division Bench also comprising Justice M C Garg.
After being transferred by the Intelligence Bureau from Delhi to Amritsar in April 1996, T C Kaushik had failed to join duty and kept sending a doctor's certificate saying he was depressed and mentally unfit to work. The department asked him to procure a certificate from a civil surgeon of a public hospital. Kaushik, however, refrained from doing so and did not join duty for over a year. When he failed to respond to an office memo warning him of disciplinary action, a charge memo was slapped on him. Kaushik challenged the same in the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set up a medical board. The board held that Kaushik was never too sick to join duty and CAT dismissed his case.
In 2001, the department imposed reduced his pay by two stages for two years and also discarded increments of pay during the said period.
Kaushik challenged this order in the High Court, which threw out his petition, holding that not reporting for duty was to be treated as a misdemeanour which should be dealt with firmly.
Source: The Indian Express
Friday, August 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment