399652

If this is not done, the question may be raised by the relatives of the person to whom a notice has not been given under 282 B (2) (b), or his friends may raise the question or, if any organization of employees is in existence, it will raise that question. So according to this clause there is wide scope. The purpose of my amendment is to restrict that scope to the person who has been affected. It is only that person that should raise this question so that it may be dealt with according to law. The general principles embodied in this article can be seen to exist in the laws of the various nations. Even in the U.S.A. it has been established that there should be permanency of tenure. In Great Britain also by tradition the permanency of tenure has become so firmly entrenched that it is not possible for any new Ministry to assail it. All these provisions have been substantially embodied in this article. Some of the honorable Members said that what has been provided in this article has been taken away by the proviso. Sir, it is not so. To my mind it seems that the proviso is applicable only in the case of those civil servants whose loyalty is very doubtful. There are civil servants whose political affiliations are open to criticism and whose loyalty to the existing government is doubtful. Under those circumstances there is no other course but to deal with them according to this proviso. Such laws can be traced in the history of other nations also. For example in 1933 when the National Socialists came to power in Germany they promulgated a Civil Service Law whereby it was provided that those civil servants whose political affiliations were questionable and open to criticism could be discharged or reduced in rank. So also those that came out openly in an aggressive manner against the existing government were severely dealt with. Similarly in our country also, for dealing with those civil servants whose loyalty is questionable and who come out openly in an aggressive manner against the government, there must be some proviso, so that the heads of departments could properly deal with them. Therefore I am of opinion that this proviso should exist and I support the provisions of this article wholeheartedly.}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *