What is corruption? Is not fulfilling (in spirit) the bond you sign corruption or not?
CENTER & ODISHA September 3rd. 2011, 11:37pmFollowing are some excerpts from a report in Business Standard. (Among all the news report that I have seen this seems to have the most numbers. Hope they are accurate.)
… on November 1, 2000, when he opted for a study leave for of years till October 31, 2002. A senior Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) official told Business Standard that according to the study leave conditions, Kejriwal had signed a bond which required him to mandatorily serve the government for three years after coming back.
Kejriwal joined back on November 1, 2002. The CBDT official said that in 2003, Kejriwal was promoted as joint commissioner and was transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh but he never joined there. The official said he went on Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) for two years thereafter from November 1, 2003 to October 31, 2005 and resigned in February 2006.
This meant that, effectively, he worked with the income tax department for one year after coming back from the study leave, against the bond condition of three years.
The CBDT official said the bond condition outlined that if he quits within three years after joining back, he would have to pay back the leave salary with interest, as determined by the government. “Kejriwal is deficient by two year,” added the official.
Kejriwal’s argues that he resigned after working for three-and-a-half years and has not violated the bond condition. In fact, Kejriwal requested CBDT for a waiver of the bond condition after resigning from service on the submission that he had been working for a public cause — the Right to Information (RTI) — which helped the government.
… The CBDT official said since then the department had sent a number of letters to Kejriwal for the payment of dues, which is a must for accepting his resignation, but he had ignored.
The latest notice was sent by CBDT on August 5. This was the time when the battle between the Anna Hazare team and the government was brewing on the Lokpal Bill, raising apprehensions of a political motive behind the move.
Kejriwal has pointed out that it was not specified that he cannot go on leave during the three year period he had to serve after coming back from his study leave. The government’s contention, on the other hand, is that he is two-years’ deficient in service as per the bond conditions and will have to pay the dues.
Following are some of my observations:
- The letters sent on August 5, 2011 ( 11 days before the fast) does seem vindictive.
- But the report above says a number of letters were sent. This contradicts the claim in many other reports that the government did not send anything for a number of years and suddenly send this just before the fast.
- The Time line mentioned above:
- Paid study leave period: November 1, 2000 till October 31, 2002.
- Bond requirement (as mentioned above): Serve three years after coming back.
- Served after coming back: November 1, 2002 – November 1, 2003
- Did not join after was transferred to Chandigarh.
- Extra-ordinary leave: November 1, 2003 to October 31, 2005
- Resigned: February 2006.
- Government’s contention: Worked with the income tax department for one year after coming back from the study leave, against the bond condition of three years.
- Kejriwal’s contention: Resigned after working for three-and-a-half years and has not violated the bond condition
To sort this out I looked up the All India Services (Study Leave Regulations) in the web. Assuming that that is the right document, it contains the following bond one has to sign before going on a study leave.
So Kejriwal is right in that he resigned more than three years after his joining back date.
But if one tries to understand the intent of the bond, which is that after going on a paid study leave, one needs to work for three years (this is not spelled out accurately in the bond), Kejriwal did not satisfy the intent.
I am no lawyer and there may be previous cases in the courts that can be used to decide what is written in the bond and what its intent is.
But even if Kejriwal is legally right, what he is doing is finding a loophole in the clumsily written bond statement. Many people who are considered corrupt by the aam janata do exactly that; hide behind loop holes.
Considering that Kejriwal is leading the anti-corruption movement and many consider him as an icon of the country (so much so that if India had a Presidential form of government, and there was a presidential election in the next few months, he would have had a very good chance of winning it) he should not hide behind a loophole; he should pay his dues immediately and move on.
.jpg){kind=link}
September 4th, 2011 at 12:48 am
There is a slight loop hole in the wording of the bond document so to speak. Its ok he resigned, nothing wrong with that.
Its even ok if he feels that he fulfilled his bond contract. But the Govt doesnt think so.
But then he goes and applies for an exemption from the bond amount!! Why?? If he thinks he fulfilled his contract, why apply for a waiver??
And even after that, when his waiver request was finally denied, he starts singing his old tune of “I fulfilled the bond terms”.
At this point he should definitely pay up. At the end of the day, he is not the one to decide whether he fulfilled his contract or not.
But if he thinks the authorities took the wrong decision in the matter, he should petition the Central Administrative Tribunal, or whatever authority or court has jurisdiction over the matter.
Till now he has done no such thing, at least to my knowledge. So he has been sitting on funds owed to the public for the last 3 years, since the DoPT rejected his waiver request in 2008. He has been sitting on his a** hoping the govt is too busy and too overburned to pursue this recovery to an extent further than sending regular notices.
I implore the govt to seriously pursue such cases, and recover money that is owed to the public. They should make an example of this case to prevent any such further actions by civil servants.
September 4th, 2011 at 4:04 am
Sir, Let us for a moment take your contention that Mr. Kejriwal is hiding behind a loop hole as true. However we cannot say that most corrupt men in India are hiding under loop holes. Corrupt men in India are brazen in their acts. They often hide behind a judicial system that takes aeons before arriving at a decision to convict. How else do you explain somebody like Ramalinga Raju who is yet to be convicted whereas a Bernie Madoff is already charged for his crime? What is the message that is being sent to people in the country – that crime pays? Well that is a very bad message to send out.
I think the broader question that we need to think about is what kind of democracy are we really proud of? Is it one which aims to silence activists who are critical of the government?
September 5th, 2011 at 1:19 am
If i had any authority in congress party i would have given instruction to the concerned depearment not to raise this issue against Mr. Arvind Kejriwal now as it only going to hamper congress party image which has gone gone from bad to worse in last few months.Rather i would sit with him and discuss to sort out the issue that is more sensible, not that he can’t pay the amount and if i go by Mr. Digvijay singh statement Mr. Kejriwal has lot money, it’s about the motive which is not very good and has only helped ruin the image of the government.