Officer flagged by ECs Sukhbir Sandhu, Vivek Joshi to cabinet secretary oversees poll panel’s IT wing

Letters to cabinet secretary TV Somanathan said Garg’s move to alter the routing of DG (IT) Seema Khanna’s files undermined an established layer of scrutiny.

The letters written by two election commissioners (ECs) to cabinet secretary TV Somanathan about the alleged misconduct of senior deputy election commissioner Maneesh Garg dealt with a worrying removal of oversight into the working of the Election Commission’s director general of IT, Seema Khanna, HT learns.

Election Commissioners S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and cabinet secretary TV Somanathan. (HT Photo)

The two letters, written by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi separately in July are identical in their language. While they do not mention a difference of opinion in the poll body, they are clear that Garg’s decision to remove the routing of the DG (IT)’s files to a deputy EC (DEC) was a violation.

Letters question removal of oversight layer

They pointed out that Sanjay Kumar, the DEC who Khanna’s files were earlier routed to, was a seasoned officer aware of the overall electoral process, and that by removing this layer of oversight, Garg had undermined the process.

This is significant because it provides a context to the clarification issued by the Election Commission last week that maintained that the letters written by the ECs to Somanathan were not related to a policy matter of the poll body or its IT department, but merely about the working of an officer deputed to the Election Commission of India.

Their clarification also said the work redistribution issued by Garg was “not actually implemented after the orders of the two commissioners and the oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn”.

Garg now handles responsibilities after Kumar’s repatriation

However, Kumar, the DEC in question and a UT cadre IAS officer, repatriated to his home cadre in August, and his responsibilities are now being looked after by Garg –– which means Khanna’s files are now routed to the ECs through him.

EC officials on condition of anonymity said that Kumar asked to be relieved as he wanted to go back to Delhi government. Kumar didn’t respond to HT’s queries.

It is also significant because Khanna and the IT department are at the heart of a raging controversy after an investigation by the Indian Express said that the new IT protocol/system put in place by Khanna, and approved by the Election Commission, shut the database from the very people responsible for adding or deleting names, Electoral Registration Officials (EROs) and deputy EROs.

Sandhu, Joshi and Garg did not respond to queries from HT.

The Election Commission also did not respond.

Somanathan forwarded complaints to DoPT

HT also learns that the country’s top bureaucrat Somanathan couldn’t act on those letters as they were written in the two ECs’ individual capacities and not as the poll panel.

Somanathan is believed to have forwarded the complaints about Garg, a Himachal cadre IAS officer, to the concerned personnel ministry, the department of personnel and training (DoPT). HT learns that the government’s view is that these letters were more in the nature of keeping it informed than seeking action –– because any action would be tantamount to infringing on the autonomy of the poll panel.

The DoPT also did not respond.

Garg explains decision as a hierarchy issue

HT has also learnt that Garg met the two ECs to clarify his position. He is believed to have explained to them that his decision was aimed at addressing a hierarchy issue since Khanna was senior to Kumar. Khanna was promoted from a level 14 to level 15 officer earlier this year, according to EC officials. Her former colleagues in the National Informatics Centre (NIC) say that she’s an efficient professional who was part of launching the government’s own e-mail system.

Some government officers are of the opinion that Garg’s perceived misconduct is a structural problem. The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 lays down that decisions of the Commission are taken by majority. When the ECs disagree, either in meetings or by circulation of files, each member’s view is recorded. Business can be allocated among commissioners for day-to-day matters, but any matter on which the commissioners disagree, or any commissioner requests referral to the full Commission, must go to the full three-member body for a majority decision.