State News

Raju (IAS) claims 'casteist' bias against his promotion

By IndianMandarins- 08 Apr 2019


A senior Tamil Nadu cadre IAS officer, Jagmohan Singh Raju, has served a legal notice on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to initiate action for the removal of Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) K.V. Chowdary and register an FIR against him under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for committing 'atrocities'.


Through his lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Raju called for the removal of the CVC under the terms of Section 6 (1) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, including making a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court for holding an inquiry.

The notice was copied to the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Secretary, and the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary.

In his complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), Raju alleged that the CVC had acted in a discriminatory manner and unfairly deprived him of his fundamental rights.

The CVC had allegedly ordered a re-inquiry into closed pseudonymous complaints against him, thus denying him the vigilance clearance required for his empanelment to the post of Additional Secretary.

He accused the CVC of harassment, demoralization, indignity and mental torture.

Raju's case is that he was cleared for promotion by a committee of the CVC and that the NCSC also recommended that the government examine the case and initiate action under Section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In December 2018, the Delhi High Court supported Raju and directed the government to take a decision on recommendations of the NCSC.

While considering the Delhi High Court order, the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in January observed that the department concerned was to consider the merits of the case, as regards the applicability of Section 4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

In the light of the court order, the DoPT in February 2019 observed that despite being considered by the Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) for empanelment at the Additional Secretary level eight times, he was not recommended for empanelment. The DoPT also conveyed the Ministry’s observations to the CVC.

Noting that the officer had vigilance clearance thrice and was still not empaneled by the ACC, the CVC informed the NCSC that the question of any administrative inquiry for the perceived delay on the part of the Commission in granting vigilance clearance would not arise. 

free stat counter