A decision of the Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman to extend the tenure of the Vigilance and Security Officer for a year has triggered a row with 14 members of the commission openly objecting to the mode of selection.
The commission members are understood to have given a letter to the chairman on March 2 citing ‘grave anomalies’ in the selection procedures as well as his current decision to extend the tenure of the officer, P.S. Sabu, who is a Superintendent of Police (SP).
The chairman is understood to have granted the extension for an year on January 19 with retrospective effect from September 20, 2014, without holding any consultations in the commission. Mr. Sabu had taken over as Vigilance Officer for a year on September 20, 2013. The Home Department had accorded sanction on August 31, 2013.
The members had stated that prior approval of the commission and also the Governor were compulsory for the appointment. The appointment and extension of service was allegedly made without following the procedures prescribed under the rules and regulations of the commission, sources said.
Governor’s consent
For, neither the appointment nor the extension had figured in the commission meetings. The chairman had not obtained the consent of the Governor. Such decisions had not legal validity, they said.
The chairman, the members said, was without power, authority, and jurisdiction encroaching upon the powers of the commission. As per the selection procedures in force, the commission would seek a panel of officers, not below the rank of SP, from the government. On getting the names, it would be placed before the commission for clearance. Approval of the Governor was also equally significant in such cases, they said.
The Vigilance Officer is assisted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, a sub-inspector, and a few civil police officers.
It was in this context that the members requested the chairman to repatriate the officer to his parent department and appoint a new officer immediately in line with the rules and regulations, sources said.
PSC members send letter to chairman
Legal validity of PSC chief’s action questioned
