Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, June 1: the tussle between the centre and the West Bengal government that started with the heightened campaign over conflict between the two ruling parties for securing power in the just-concluded state Assembly elections, refuses to die down.
Fuelled by their respective egos, the prime minister Narendra Modi and the union home minister Amit Shah have taken it up with the re-elected chief minister Mamata Banerjee making her skipping the review meeting in the aftermath of the cyclone “Yaas” tragedy a big issue. Since the chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay despite being an IAS cadre officer stayed with the chief minister during the alleged “boycott” of the review meeting, the centre has directed its ire against him.
Besides issuing a rebuttal against Banerjee’s claims that she did not boycott the meeting but took the prime minister’s “permission” to leave the venue due to her other prior engagements, the centre has also served a show cause notice to Bandyopadhyay just hours before he announced his “retirement” from the IAS cadre service and was promptly appointed the “chief adviser” to the state government for a period of three years. Bandyopadhyay was scheduled to retire after the working hours on May 31 but was granted a three months extension by the centre four days ago in view of the dual burden of works for the Covid pandemic and the relief measures for the cyclone-hit.
But in a bid to bunk the centre’s transfer orders asking him to report in Delhi to serve a brief stint with the union government, Bandyopadhyay refused to accept the extension and “retired” at the original scheduled hour. But Hours before he retired, he was served a show cause notice by the Union Home Ministry under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, punishable by an imprisonment of up to two years or a fine or both.
The section pertains to “punishment for obstruction” for refusal to comply with a direction given by the Central government.
Bandyopadhyay has been asked to “explain in writing” to the Home Ministry within three days as to “why action should not be taken against him” under Section 51 of the DM Act.
In its nine-point rebuttal Banerjee’s claims, the Centre also defended its moves against Bandyopadhyay, claiming that the transfer order was perfectly constitutional and not a vendetta move as alleged by the chief minister.
“The order is perfectly constitutional since Chief Secretary is an All India Services officer. He chose to ignore his constitutional duties, as a result of which no presentation was given to PM and no officer of the West Bengal government attended the PM’s review meeting,” sources said.
Claiming that Banerjee had given “entirely false statements,” the centre in its second rebuttal said she had actually “boycotted” a meeting with the Prime Minister on Friday after agreeing to attend it.
Mamata Banerjee and her team had skipped the meeting with Modi to review the impact of Cyclone Yaas in Bengal and left after a brief interaction with the Prime Minister, setting up a mega clash.
Modi never gave permission to Banerjee to leave the review meeting as she claims, government sources said. To her claim about being informed belatedly about the Prime Minister’s schedule, the sources said a meeting to assess cyclone damage could not be finalised “before the cyclone comes.”
Banerjee has repeatedly alleged that she waited to meet the PM. Government sources countered that with time details. “PM landed at Kalaikunda at 1.59 pm. Mamata Banerjee landed at Kalaikunda after the PM at 2.10 pm. It is clear that PM was kept waiting for Mamata Banerjee as he landed much before her. This was also confirmed by a TMC MP who tweeted that there was no big deal in PM being kept waiting,” said government sources.
After her chopper landed, she reached the building where the meeting was to take place, around 500 metres away. “After meeting the PM, she departed for her next journey at 2.35 pm. So in effect, she travelled 500 metres to and fro, met PM and departed in 25 minutes. She left before the PM left, which is clearly contrary to accepted practices and protocol. It is clear that Mamata Banerjee’s statement of being made to wait is entirely false and that she made the PM wait,” government sources said.
The sources also said Mamata Banerjee had agreed to attend the PM’s review but had changed her mind after learning that her former aide-turned- BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, who is the state’s Leader of Opposition, would be in the meeting.
“Mamata Banerjee chose to boycott the review meeting because the LOP of WB was present. No issue was created by government on this, because what mattered was Cyclone relief activities. It was suggested to her that PM will meet her immediately after the review meeting as that was the reason for which he traveled to West Bengal. Sensing that she may have to wait till the review meeting gets over, she chose to prevent other officers too from attending the meeting and in effect cancelled the review meeting scheduled by the Prime Minister,” the sources said.
On Banerjee saying she had to wait for 20 minutes and her chopper had to hover because the PM’s chopper was to land, the sources said she should have come in advance, “as everyone does when PM is supposed to land at any airport”.
Government sources said Bandyopadhyay’s retirement showed that the chief minister was on the backfoot. “She knows that facts of the matter are against the Chief Secretary and his behaviour was such that it will invite strict disciplinary action…All India officers are not expected to be part of politics. Mamata knows all this and his retirement is a last bid to save him,” they said.
Banerjee’s objection to Suvendu Adhikari’s presence was also dismissed by the Centre, which said, “There have been numerous meetings in the past in non-BJP ruled states where representatives of other parties have been present.”
Besides the notice by the home ministry under the DM act, the Union Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) also shot off a letter asking him to comply with its May 28 order asking him to report to the Central government’s office in Delhi on May 31.
The DM Act, 2005, first came into existence after the 2004 tsunami, when thousands were killed. It was invoked for the first time in the country in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic last year. On March 24, 2020, the Centre, through the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) headed by the Prime Minister, invoked the provisions of the Act to streamline the management of the pandemic, empowering District Magistrates to take decisions and centralise other decisions on supply of oxygen and movement of vehicles.
The Union Home Secretary is the chairman of the national executive committee under the NDMA. The Act is still in place and has been extended across the country till June 30.
Though the DoPT is the cadre-controlling authority of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, the show cause notice was served under provisions of the DM Act, which is under the purview of the Home Ministry.
The notice said that since the Prime Minister is head of the NDMA and had gone to West Bengal to review Cyclone Yaas, the officer’s act of “abstaining himself” from the meeting amounted to violation of the Act.
The section 51(b) of the DM act under which the notice was served prescribes “punishment for obstruction” for refusal to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central government or the State government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under the Act.
It says that violation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year or with a fine or both upon conviction. It adds that if “such refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.”
The experts, however, claimed that the West Bengal government could clearly find an escape route in the caveats under the act in which it said the person can act otherwise if there was “reasonable cause” and “lawful excuses” which the chief secretary must be having for not attending the meeting.
The experts also felt that “It will be in the interest of the nation to concentrate on fighting Covid instead of wasting time and energy in Centre versus State at this crucial junction. The Centre should show dignified maturity in closing the case particularly when the chief secretary certainly having no intention to disobey the centre or show disrespect to the prime minister.”