Taking a top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Defence to task for trying to wash his hands off responsibility, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held that the Secretary, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare (DESW), in the Ministry is responsible for implementing the Tribunal’s orders concerning pensionary benefits and that the Service Headquarters have limited powers of delegation in this regard.
Putting an end to the question of whether the Secretary, DESW, can be summoned by the AFT for contempt over non-implementation of the court’s orders, the Bench observed that the DESW has an important role to play in implementation of Court orders and in exercise of its authority to lay down policy in pensionary matters, it interferes with the delegated authority of the Service Headquarters.
“The answer to the question framed is decided against the secretary. In implementation of Court orders the Service HQs are dependent upon instructions issued by the DESW and the Secretary being its apex level authority has to be answerable for their non-implementation,” the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ranbir Singh ruled in their order of November 13.
The Bench had summoned the secretary, who repeatedly insisted that his department was not concerned in the matter, for non-implementation of an order of January 2019, granting disability benefits to a soldier from the Sikh Regiment. The Bench observed that the order was not implemented despite no stay on it or without any valid reason being given.
Further, the secretary violated direction to appear before the court on two separate occasions without proper justification, following which a notice for contempt was issued and the secretary as well as the Additional Director General, Personnel Service in Army Headquarters were asked to file affidavits explaining their respective stance on the powers of implementing court orders.
The Bench observed that from the affidavits and pleadings on record, Service Headquarters can implement Court orders only with the concurrence of the Principal Integrated Financial Advisor (PIFA). The powers delegated to Service Headquarters are conditional and circumscribed by concurrence of PIFA, who possesses the authority to direct them to challenge Court orders and Service Headquarters do not have the authority to overrule the recommendations of PIFA.
Pointing out that the secretary has adopted a stand of denial of responsibility only to escape consequences of contempt, the Bench said that his stand is completely contrary to the documents placed on record.
“Denial of responsibility by the apex-level authority reflects very poorly on his leadership qualities. It reveals that even a Secretary-level officer of the Government of India can stoop to the level of denial of responsibility simply to shift blame on somebody else,” the Bench observed.