The IAS Officers’ Association of Karnataka has approached Chief Minister Siddaramaiah seeking action against a Congress MLA for allegedly abusing and threatening a senior IAS officer with dire consequences if he did not put up “favourable notes” for proposals submitted by a society headed by the MLA.
Sources alleged that K. Shivamurthy, Mayakonda MLA, and Chairman of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Committee of the legislature, entered the chamber of Ajay Seth, Principal Secretary, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, and demanded approval for grant-in-aid for five institutions managed by the Chitradurga District Banajara Youth Society of which he is the chairman.
‘Not eligible’
Department sources said that the records pointed out that these institutions were closed for several years and did not meet necessary criteria for grants. On being told this, Mr. Shivamurthy reportedly called Mr. Seth an “anti-Dalit officer”. He went on to say that “the government was his government and the government’s money was his money,” Mr. Seth has said in a letter to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary, a copy of which is available with The Hindu .
Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Secretary, IAS Officers’ Association of Karnataka, said they met the Chief Minister last week and expressed “concern and anguish” over the incident.
“Mr. Seth is a very senior and respected IAS officer and an MLA cannot use foul words and abusive language. It brings down the morale of the officials and instances like these do not help in efficient governance in any way,” Mr. Pandey said.
Tanvir Sait, Primary and Secondary Education Minister, too has written a letter in support of the IAS officer. He told the Chief Minister that Mr. Shivamurthy in the past too behaved similarly with other officials in the department. He has asked the Chief Minister to issue a “final warning” to the MLA.
MLA’s stand
When contacted by The Hindu , Mr. Shivamurthy argued that denying grant or recognition to SC and ST institutions was “against court orders”, while not explaining what order he was referring to. He also said that the move was an “attempt to not allow SCs, STs to demand their rights.” He, however, did not comment on whether he had used abusive language against the officer.
