New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the tendency of IAS officers for flouting the orders and directions of the apex court with impunity.

Hearing a contempt petition against two Tamil Nadu IAS officers, a Bench of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir observed "of late there is a tendency among the IAS officers not to obey the orders passed by this court. The reason is they think that they are so big that they need not implement the directions given by this court."

The Bench said "there is utter callousness and orders are flouted with impunity. We will teach a lesson to such IAS officers."

On the directions of the Bench, M. Devaraj, IAS, Secretary, Commercial Tax and Religious Endowment Department and G. Muthusamy, IAS, Inspector General of Registration personally appeared in the court on Wednesday and tendered unconditional apology for not obeying the directions given by the apex court in July 4, 2006 in a petition relating to re-fixation of seniority in the Registration department.

Apology

When the two officers offered apology, the Bench told them "It is a serious matter. We don't want your apology. Tell us who asked you not to obey our orders, is it a Minister or at the instance of politicians. We will haul them for contempt. We will make the entire Secretariat present here." They replied, "it was our own decision. It will not be repeated."

The Bench told the officers "if you had any doubt in the order, you should have approached the court and sought a clarification. When even an order passed by a Magistrate has to be obeyed, it is not proper for you to flout the orders of the highest court of the land."

Contempt petition

The Bench was hearing a contempt petition from K. Madalaimuthu and A. Arumuga Nainar, in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration, alleging that the two officers had violated the order passed on July 4, 2006.

Additional Solicitor General, R. Mohan and counsel V.G. Pragasam, appearing for the State, said that Mr. Madalaimuthu had been promoted as Additional Inspector General of Registration but Mr. Nainar could not be promoted, as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him.

However, senior counsel K. Ramamurthy and counsel B. Balaji said a frivolous charge was framed against Mr. Nainar after the contempt petition was filed.

In the light of this submission, the Bench asked the two officers to implement the July 4, 2006 directions in letter and spirit and adjourned the proceedings to February 27. The petitioners were permitted to file additional documents relating to the proceedings pending in the Madras High Court and rejoinder, if any, by the two officers and the State Government.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail