Speaker's rejoinder to my write-up
M Hafizuddin Khan
The Honourable Speaker termed my comments of yesterday as "confusing and misconceived." My contention, I again claim, is very clear. As per General Financial Rules no government official or public office holder -- high or low, big or small, constitutional, elected or appointed can pass an order which will be to his benefit directly or indirectly. This is one of the fundamental principles on which the whole edifice of financial powers, responsibilities, procedures, control mechanism, delegation of authority, etc. have been built up. If the Honourable Speaker thinks that the Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994 is supreme and the Act has the effect of nullifying the Standards of Financial Propriety as incorporated in the General Financial Rules then, he should have asked the Finance Ministry, the custodian of the said Rules, to make it consistent with the powers of the Speaker in so far as it relates to his authority to sanction any money for his own benefit. As long as this is not done his unilateral assumption of power of sanction of money for his own benefit will be totally improper, illegal and objectionable.Mr Speaker's statement that the then Prime Minister returned his summary with the remark that the Speaker should take action in terms of the Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994, does not ifso facto, empower him to sanction money for his own benefit. He has to follow the procedure as incorporated in the said Act by proposing budgetary provision and obtaining sanction of the Parliament Secretariat Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that his predecessor sanctioned mobile telephones, 35 in number to the Parliament staff to which we, from the C&AG's office objected. The Speaker, after a prolonged correspondence, had to submit this to the Parliament Secretariat Commission, and the Commission did not approve it. As a result, all these mobile telephones had to be surrendered. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Parliament Secretariat Act itself is not beyond question. The Act was passed by the then Parliament invoking Article 79 of the Constitution, which reads as under: Article 79 (1) Parliament shall have its own Secretariat (2) Parliament may by law, regulate the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the Secretariat of the Parliament. (3) Until provision is made by Parliament the President may, after consultation with the Speaker, make rules regulating the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the Secretariat of the Parliament, and rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law. Mr Speaker -- may I raise a question here? What is the relationship of the Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994 with Article 79 of the Constitution? Does it need one to be a legal degree holder to understand that the said Act is a bad law? The Act has given very wide powers to the Parliament Secretariat, has freed the Secretariat from all sorts of control and scrutiny making it unaccountable to any one excepting the Parliament Secretariat Commission. If the Parliament Secretariat is unaccountable and non-transparent then how can we except that the Parliament will exercise oversight function on the administration to establish transparency and accountability.
|
|
