U'khand HC Contempt Notice To AIIMS Director, Health Secy For Non-Payment Of Cost To Whistleblower Officer

Once pulled up by the Uttarakhand High Court for its vindictive attitude towards whistleblower IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi for blowing the lid off massive corruption in AIIMS, the Centre and AIIMS are in the spot again.

This time around, the Uttarakhand High Court has issued a notice to Preeti Sudan, Union Health Secretary and also AIIMS Director Dr. Randeep Guleria to show as to why they be not punished for contempt of court for their failure in paying the cost of Rs 25,000 to Chaturvedi.

Almost a year ago, in August, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court had imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Centre for misleading the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi into staying proceedings in a service matter instituted by Chaturvedi before the Nainital bench wherein he had sought quashing of his poor appraisal report for year 2015-16.

This was the time he had served as CVO, AIIMS on central deputation and highlighted several cases of corruption in country's premier medical institute.

The proceedings in his application for quashing of poor ACR before a division bench of Nainital CAT was stayed by the Chairman, CAT while sitting singly on an application moved by the Centre while Chaturvedi was away to Finland for mandatory foreign training.

Holding that CAT chairman could not have stayed singly the proceedings pending before a Division circuit bench, the high court had imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 of Centre and AIIMS for misrepresenting facts.

On June 24, Chaturvedi once again moved court saying the Respondents (Centre and AIIMS) have failed to comply with its orders as they have till date not paid the costs to him.

He said "it is a settled law that in such cases, unsuccessful party pays the costs to successful party unless otherwise ordered by the court" but the respondents have not paid him the costs nor given him any intimation about it even as he is being dragged in various frivolous litigations for which he incurs loss of work and money.

It is to be noted that in the same case revolving around transfer of cases from Nainital to CAT, New Delhi, the high court had issued contempt notice to CAT chairman for defying its order by continuing to hear Centre's petition for transfer despite categorical findings of the high court before finally recusing himself from all cases relating to Chaturvedi.