PANAJI
Junior Engineer in the Electricity Deparment and activist Kashinath Shetye, while not directly responding to Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar's announcement that he would launch multi-agency
investigations against him, has uploaded a list of documents that
he says is the govt's "permission" to allow him to continue his ‘activism'.
The documents, include an official legal opinion offered by the then Advocate General Atmaram Nadkarni in response to Minister of Power seeking to deny him a promotion, citing that unless there are disciplinary proceedings against the official, no promotion can be denied and that there is nothing that bars him from filing PILs.
"The conduct of Kashinath Shetye has been completely unbecoming of a government servant and that apart from dragging the government to the court which, by itself, cannot be a misconduct... It may not be understood to mean that he cannot file a PIL, on the contrary a citizen has every right to file a PIL and bring to book the persons guilty of corruption, nepotism and other wrongdoings. Such persons filing PILs need to be complimented," then then Advocate General Atmaram Nadkarni said in advice to the Chief Minister.
On the issue of promotion, Nadkarni said that the promotion of an individual is the right of a government servant provided he is eligible and there is otherwise nothing adverse to him.
"The promotion of an individual cannot be withheld unless and until disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against an official and a charge sheet is filed or charges are framed. In the event if such a charge sheet is issued to the government servant then in that event until the disciplinary proceedings are completed the promotion of such an individual is required to be withheld...," Adv Nadkarni had recorded in a note to the then chief minister Manohar Parrikar. Adv Nadkarni, lamented that none of his (Shetye's) superiors were willing to take action against him.
"I have observed in this matter that for some reason or the other the departmental official and the officials of the state government do not have sufficient courage to act against the misconduct of Kashinath Shetye fearing reprisal by him. This is unfortunate. The unbecoming acts of such a government servant who recklessly goes on to file criminal complaints and make statements against those occupying high office merely with an intention to embarrass them claiming to be an activist...," Nadkarni said in his advice to the chief minister.
In response to this advice from the AG, the Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar then put a note to ask the department to report on his performance.
"We may ask Principal Secretary (Power) to examine the overall performance of Kashinath Shetye in view of his activities in that probably keep him engaged.
May seek details of work allotted to him and his performance vis a vis allotment.
Report may be submitted within one week so as to decided a further course of action," Parrikar had noted.
In his response to the Chief Minister, the then Chief Electrical Engineer Nirmal Braganza said that there was no dereliction of duty on the part of Shetye.
"Kashinath Shetye Junior Engineer (Civil) has been allotted works as shown... In addition he has been appointed as presenting officer in 15 disciplinary cases of the department pertaining to misappropriation of government funds... He has been assisting all the subordinate officers in drafting suitable replies to RTI queries attending hearings before the First Appellate Authority, State Information Commission and Quasi Judicial Authorities ."
"In fact with his assistance and guidance most of the RTI matters have been settled without any appeals being preferred. The arrangement has been done as the two legal assistants provided to the Electricity Department have been transferred ad posted in the law department along with their posts," Braganza noted.
Shetye, in his defence also pointed to an order by the Goa Human Rights Commission, which ordered that the government pay him a compensation to the tune of Rs 5,000 besides releasing his salary after his salary was withheld for more than
fifteen months.
