The Jharkhand High Court bly reprimanded an IAS officer in a land acquisition case, deeming his objection to the state government's decided compensation as irresponsible. The court warned of contempt proceedings and FIR registration.
Ranchi: During the hearing of a land acquisition case, the Jharkhand High Court sternly admonished a senior IAS officer. The court questioned the officer, "Who are you to object to the compensation decided by the state?". Suspicions of irregularities were raised during the hearing, and the officer was warned of contempt proceedings and FIR registration. The video of the court proceedings has since gone viral on social media.
IAS Officer Expressed Objection to Compensation
During the hearing, the High Court observed that the concerned IAS officer had raised an objection to the compensation amount fixed by the state government. The judge questioned whether the officer had any personal interest and if he had received any commission or undue benefit in the compensation.
The court sternly stated, "When the state government has decided the compensation amount, why are you questioning it? This is public money and cannot be misused in this manner." The officer was unable to provide a satisfactory answer to this question.
High Court Warned the IAS Officer
Calling the officer's conduct irresponsible, the High Court stated that contempt proceedings could be initiated against him if he failed to comply with the court's orders or if further irregularities surfaced in the case.
The court also indicated that an FIR could be registered in the matter if necessary, enabling action against the officer under the law. This action by the court sends a clear message regarding the duties and accountability of government officials in the state.
Land and Compensation Dispute in High Court
This issue came to light during a hearing before a bench of the Jharkhand High Court, where a petition related to land acquisition and compensation was being considered. The court took the officer's conduct seriously and questioned his working style.
During the investigation and hearing, an attempt was made to ascertain whether the officer had challenged the compensation for personal gain or commission. The High Court, while monitoring this entire development, clarified that the misuse of public interest and government funds would not be tolerated under any circumstances.
