The AAP politician then moved the High Court challenging the LG’s actions.
In his plea, the AAP politician also challenged the decision of the chamber of the Director (Planning), Delhi Government, who ordered locking of Shah’s office and withdrawing all staff and facilities provided to him.
The plea argued that in terms of the constitution of the DDCD, the sole supervisory jurisdiction and authority over the appointment and discharge of functions of the office of DDCD lies with the Delhi cabinet and the Chief Minister.
LG does not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint or to seek the Shah’s explanation or pass any directions on the same, it stated.
“The Petitioner further submits that the entire basis of the proceedings against the Petitioner that he has misused his office as Vice Chairperson, DDCD by appearing in television debates on behalf of the Aam Aadmi Party is fallacious and misconceived,” the plea said.
It added,
“It is submitted that the expectation of political neutrality is only associated with “Government servants” who constitute the “permanent executive” in a Parliamentary system of democracy such as the one adopted by India. In such a system, while policy is decided by elected leaders or the “political executive”, policy decisions are implemented or administered by the Government servants or the “permanent executive”.
Source: Barandbench
