The six charges against IAS officer Ashok Khemka and his replies

of 35 IAS officers took two or more working days to relinquish charge…, but not a single officer was chargesheeted on this score… The transfer order was delivered to me at 10 pm at residence on Thursday (October 11). On October 12 (Friday), I made a representation to the Chief Secretary against transfer order because it was violative of the minimum two-year tenure. October 13 and 14 were Saturday and Sunday. The order in question (Vadra-DLF land deal) was passed at 10 am on Monday (October 15) and dispatched by post and fax by 11 am. At 4.30 pm, [I] relinquished the charge.”

CHARGE: Khemka, with mala fide intention, arbitrarily cancelled the mutation in violation [of the law, even though] he had no jurisdiction over the subject and no power as appellate or revisional authority. With mala fide intention, he singled out one particular transaction (Vadra-DLF deal), showing bias and a lack of ethics.

[related-post]

REPLY: “The charge that I had no jurisdiction to pass the said order [cancelling the Vadra-DLF deal] is patently false and maliciously concocted… The order is final and the only recourse to an aggrieved party is to approach the Hon’ble High Court…”

CHARGE: In village Shikhopur, some 2,500 mutations recording transfer of lands had been sanctioned between 1990 and 2012. Khemka’s biased and illegal action amounts to deliberate misuse of his official position

REPLY: (Combined reply filed for both Charges 2 and 3, excerpted above)

CHARGE: Khemka asked DCs of Gurgaon, Faridabad, Palwal and Mewat to inspect all documents registered from January 1, 2005, by or on behalf of Robert Vadra, only on the basis of newspaper reports of allegations by India Against Corruption and alleged statements by the Leader of Opposition in Haryana Vidhan Sabha.

REPLY: “Inquiry was ordered on the basis of stories in reputed national dailies. No other case of under-valuation was brought to my knowledge. The charge that I chose a single individual and his companies, implying that I did not act against similarly placed other individuals, is false… Should the actions taken by various authorities in the [December 16, 2012 Delhi] gangrape case be indicted as being ‘selective’ or applauded as showing sensitivity?”

CHARGE: Though not remotely concerned with the working of the Town and Country Planning Department, Khemka, as DGCH, issued a Memo to the Director, TCPD, not to accord sale permission (etc.) This amounts to exceeding his jurisdiction, and contravenes Conduct of Service Rules.

REPLY: “[The Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered TCPD that] if any further colony licence was to be granted to a company, the Competent Authority shall look into that there was no violation of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 or any other tax statute… By charging me for complying with [these] directions, the Members of the Committee [that decided to chargesheet Khemka] have shown gross contempt to [the HC].”

CHARGE: Khemka criticised policies of the government in interviews to the media, thus tarnishing its image.

REPLY: “The act of black-marketing of colony licence by a private person is not government action or government policy. My devotion and integrity as a public servant is to the law and not to any individual… If the government is aggrieved by the publication of any news story, nothing stops (it) from taking appropriate action against the concerned publication.”

(Edited excerpts from Khemka’s reply, compiled by Varinder Bhatia)