"Being prevented from performing duties": Special Vigilance Secretary after Kejriwal govt withdraws work

However, the IAS officer, who is holding the charge of Special Secretary (Vigilance) with the additional charge of Special Secretary (Services), said he is a "Member of IAS and protected under Rule 311 of the Constitution of India and also protected under Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre Rules 1954)".

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government has called for withdrawing all work from Special Secretary (Vigilance) YVVJ Rajshekhar, who is probing the alleged corruption in the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bungalow. Vigilance Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj on May 13 ordered the withdrawal of all work assigned to the officer with immediate effect, citing complaints against Rajshekhar for "running an extortion racket and demanding protection money".

"There are complaints that Rajshekhar is running an extortion racket and demanding protection money. This allegation is quite serious and needs to be examined in detail... Therefore, all work assigned to Rajshekhar is hereby withdrawn," a communication written to YVVJ Rajshekhar. "The same may be distributed amongst ADs and ADs will directly report to Secretary (Vigilance). The ADs should directly put up the files to Secretary (Vigilance). This is for immediate compliance till further orders," it stated.

However, the IAS officer, who is holding the charge of Special Secretary (Vigilance) with the additional charge of Special Secretary (Services), said he is a "Member of IAS and protected under Rule 311 of the Constitution of India and also protected under Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre Rules 1954)". "One cannot deny the rights which are accrued to a civil servant/public servant under the rule which he is entitled for," he said in his reply.

He further exaggerated that he must be allowed to perform his duties objectively and dispassionately as per rule of law and documents and records that are available on the file. Rajshekhar also underlined that vigilance inquiries are done as per the set protocols and manuals prepared by the Central Vigilance Commission (VGC).

"It is just like Mathematics and there is no scope for subjectivity while dealing with such cases as this case is filtered through due process as established by Law," he said. "The undersigned is being prevented from performing the duties and I apprehend serious threat and diversions of records pertaining to sensitive matters like Excise matter, 6 Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, DIP etc. It is requested that this matter may be brought to the notice of the High Court to stay the order issued by the minister (Vigilance) vide his note dated 13.05.2023," he added.

Urging that permission may be accorded to engage Sanjay Jain, ASG, before the High Court along with Yoginder Handoo as Special Counsel/Briefing Counsel and if need be, the matter may also be brought before the notice of the Supreme Court wherein permission may be accorded to engage Harish Salve, senior counsel in the Supreme Court, he said: "This kind of restraint to perform the duties amounts to indirectly transferring the undersigned from this Department which is nothing but subverting the decision of the Supreme Court dated 31.10.2013 wherein the officer can be transferred only through the deliberation of the Civil Services Board". "One cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The officer is also entitled for rights that are provided to him under the All India Services Cadre Rules i.e. Rule 7," Rajshekhar added in its reply. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)