SC warns bureaucrats against contempt of court

New Delhi, Feb 14 (UNI) The Supreme Court today gave stern warning to the bureaucrats, especially IAS officers in the country that it will no longer tolerate officers who flout the orders and directions of the court with impunity.

A bench comprising Justices A R Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir, issued the warnings to the Indian bureaucracy during the hearing of a contempt petition against two senior IAS officers from Tamil Nadu.

The two officers, M Devraj, Secretary, Commercial Taxes in Tamil Nadu and Muthu Swamy, secretary, Registration Department of the state who were presented in the court today tendered an unconditional apology before the court.

The court however, retorted "You have no authority to flout the orders of the court with impunity. Of late, it has become a tendency among IAS officers to disobey the Supreme Court orders because they think they are so big and need not implement the orders. We will not tolerate such type of officers who flout the orders of the court with impunity. We do not want your apology.

We want you to implement our orders in letter and spirit." The court urged the two officers to name the person/s responsible for such a misconduct so that the court could take strict actions against them.

The officers, however submitted, "We took our own decision." The court directed the petitioner K Madalai Muthu and A Nainar to file the entire record of the proceedings pending in the Madras High Court where the state government had taken the stand that it need not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court.

The court also permitted the two contemnors to file their response while adjourning the matter till February 27.

The apex court had issued directions in July 2006 to refix the seniority in the registration department as per the court's direction. The orders were not complied with. The petitioners filed contempt of court petition against the two officers who were directed to be present in the court last month.

Senior counsel K Ramamurthy appearing for the contemnor informed the court that the first petitioner has already been promoted as Additional Inspector General registration but since the disciplinary proceedings were pending against Mr Nainar, he has not been promoted though his seniority has been refixed.

UNI