New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi will decide on all matters relating to Lokpal, CVC and anti- corruption legislation under newly-formed delegation of powers on works handled by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
The Prime Minister, who is also the Cabinet Minister for the ministry, will have a final say in "major policy issues relating to Right to Information (RTI)" and "constitution of a new all India service".
The Ministry has come out with an "internal delegation of powers for final disposal of cases" dealt by it. A note carrying details of work and final authority for its disposal has been circulated by the Department of Personnel and Training, among the ministry officials.
The matters relating to CBI including grant of permission for filing extradition proceedings, framing of recruitment rules for Group 'A' posts in the agency, deputation of its officers of the rank of DIG and above to other organisations will be disposed at the level of Minister of State, said the note.
The Prime Minister will be deciding on disciplinary cases against Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Central Secretariat Service (CSS) officers, Grade I and above, and Group' A' officers in CBI.
The appeals filed by these officers and cases relating to their sanction for prosecution will be disposed at the level of Prime Minister, it said.
The delegation of powers has no mention of any other administrative work related to the CBI to be dealt by the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Personnel acts as a nodal authority for CBI to facilitate its administrative work.
The Centre also faced flak for appointing Ramasundaram to the post of Additional Director, CBI, when her name was not recommended by the Central Selection Committee.
"How do you appoint a person whose name does not find a place in the list of the names recommended," the bench said, adding that "how Centre can travel beyond the recommendation".
The apex court disagreed with the Attorney General's submission that the dispute between one officer against the other on appointment has come before it.
"It is not a simple case of dispute between two officers. It relates to a department as sensitive as CBI, which is handling cases of wide ramification. The official assumes significance as the post is of Additional Director. This is not a simple matter of posting," the bench said.
The Centre's contention did not cut much ice that the state government's silence for months on Ramasundram's appointment was automatically considered as approval for central deputation.
Rohatgi submitted it was not a case of disagreement but that of silence that was opposed by Tamil Nadu Government, which said keeping mum should not be taken as an agreement.
The Jayalalithaa government had accused Ramasundaram of deserting her post in the state government and joining CBI without being relieved of her duties. The state government had placed her under suspension.
The bench was of the view that rules require concurrence of the state government and every action has to be taken by taking into account the federal structure.
The bench made it clear that it was not making any remarks against the officer, who has been charge sheeted by Tamil Nadu for joining CBI on central deputation without being relieved.
"The officer has been sandwiched between the stand of the Centre and the state government. Whatever be the legal position, an officer should not be treated like this. Why should the state take a position which affects the morale of officers," the bench observed.
"In a situation like this the Centre's role is to defuse the crisis and not to aggravate it. Why should anything cause harm to officer's service. Why should the Centre do anything like that," it said.
The apex court had earlier also made it clear that the PIL filed against Ramasundaram against her joining CBI has nothing to do with her merit as an officer and its adjudication is confined to the procedure adopted by the Centre on her appointment.
Tamil Nadu had told the court that it had not relieved her to join CBI.
