JP Nadda told not to review performance report of Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi
NEW DELHI: The Central Administrative Tribunal has restrained Union health minister JP Nadda from reviewing performance report of Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi for the period when he served as chief vigilance officer at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.
Justice (Retd) Permod Kohli, chairman of the tribunal, ruled that former AIIMS director MC Misra and deputy director V Srinivas could not write and review Chaturvedi’s annual confidential report (ACR) for December 2014 to March 2015.
The tribunal allowed Chaturvedi to file a plea seeking contempt against the authorities for allegedly violating its order of February 2016, which prohibited Nadda from reviewing Chaturvedi’s ACR.
The tribunal said then that Nadda was not a competent authority because he had not reviewed Chaturvedi’s work for the mandatory 90-day period.
Chaturvedi petitioned the tribunal on Monday after AIIMS informed him on January 21 that his ACR would be reviewed by Nadda as there was no legal impediment.
The IFS officer contended that the decision was contrary to law and that “an executive order cannot supersede a judicial order.” The tribunal issued notices to the Cabinet Secretary and the Union health secretary and sought their responses by April 17.
Justice (Retd) Permod Kohli, chairman of the tribunal, ruled that former AIIMS director MC Misra and deputy director V Srinivas could not write and review Chaturvedi’s annual confidential report (ACR) for December 2014 to March 2015.
The tribunal allowed Chaturvedi to file a plea seeking contempt against the authorities for allegedly violating its order of February 2016, which prohibited Nadda from reviewing Chaturvedi’s ACR.
The tribunal said then that Nadda was not a competent authority because he had not reviewed Chaturvedi’s work for the mandatory 90-day period.
Chaturvedi petitioned the tribunal on Monday after AIIMS informed him on January 21 that his ACR would be reviewed by Nadda as there was no legal impediment.
The IFS officer contended that the decision was contrary to law and that “an executive order cannot supersede a judicial order.” The tribunal issued notices to the Cabinet Secretary and the Union health secretary and sought their responses by April 17.
