Nagpur. Despite several delays in surrender, emergency parole of 45 days was given earlier also, but now the prisoner Hanuman Pendam filed a petition in the High Court challenging it after the application for grant of similar leave was turned down. The court had ordered the Additional Chief Secretary to conduct a departmental inquiry against Jail Superintendent Anupkumar Kumre as per the provisions provided in the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules. Also there were orders to present the report.
Despite the clear orders of the High Court, the court was requested to give time by filing an affidavit through Deputy Secretary Anirudh Jevlikar. On this, Justice VM Deshpande and Justice Amit Borkar expressed their displeasure and ordered to file a reply with an explanation of why action should not be taken against the contempt of the court’s order. Chief Secretary (Prisons). As a court friend Firdous Mirza and Mr. Shweta Wankhede and Assistant Public Prosecutor MK Pathan argued on behalf of the government.
Application as per bureaucratic procedure
Taking strong objection to the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, the court said that the reason given for giving time is not satisfactory. Extremely respectful of following the order as per the time given by the High Court. The Chief Secretary does not appear serious. The affidavit has been filed in the manner in which applications are normally filed as per the bureaucratic process. According to the High Court, The Chief Secretary is not quick to take up the matter. Although very The Chief Secretary was ordered to conduct a departmental inquiry against Kumre and not the Deputy Secretary. Despite this, the deputy secretary’s affidavit is no less than a surprise. If an order is made by the court by marking the post, then the officer of the same post is expected to complete the proceedings and file an affidavit.
Don’t expect this from higher authority
The court said in the order that in fact the Deputy Secretary should not have anything to do with this issue, while the High Court has clearly stated that Orders were issued to the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the affidavit should have been filed by this officer. Also, it is necessary to have the application of the same officer to ask for time. The informal manner in which the affidavit was filed is not satisfactory. Extreme. The Chief Secretary did not follow the order of the High Court as expected. This is not expected from such a high official. To complete the investigation. The Chief Secretary does not appear serious. The court over Ordered to file reply from Chief Secretary by March 15.