Respected All
I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal
expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n
that's why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to
put the right things before others. I believe that we all activists
are an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before
myself than others tell this to me later on.
So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of Removal of Uttar
Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj.
( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition " Subject to the
provisions of subsection (3) ", to me this means that subsection 3
overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from
office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief
Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which,
in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
The section 17 subsection (3) has condition " Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) " , to me this means in spite of
the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection
( 3 ) shall have overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also
be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17, subsection 3 is the ultimate n
gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just
functioning of ICs .
( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of Ranjit singh Pankaj by
Allahabad high court i.e. slapping a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for
"misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in
illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in
the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of
Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs
50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his
salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts,
telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action
against him.

I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj
who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC ,
shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some
other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCIC Pankaj is not guilty of
moral turpitude . If the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no
bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the
general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC ,
another public servant?

In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj's case is a case of proved
professional misconduct involving proved moral turpitude or not ?

If law permits a corrupt and convicted person to hold a public post ?

-----------------------

@i$#w@ry@!