NEW DELHI: The Cabinet Secretariat refrained from taking any action on complaints sent by two Election Commissioners against the conduct of an officer in the Commission, noting that the communications were in their "individual capacity" and in the absence of "any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate", records made public in an RTI reply show.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had sent two separate communications on July 29 to the top bureaucrat of the country, T V Somanathan, on the working of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner (Sr DEC) Maneesh Garg, IAS, who was posted in the Commission by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet since September 2, 2024, the letters provided in the RTI reply to activist Commodore Lokesh K Batra (retd) show.
The Indian Express had reported in September that Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan after issuance of a work allocation order within the poll body that "threatened to concentrate the powers" at the Election Commission centrally to add or delete names and update records in the voters' list rather than allowing officials at the state level.
In a statement on September 26, the Election Commission (EC) had said that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer concerned were never implemented following directions from the two Commissioners.
The poll panel had said that the letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary pertained to an officer on deputation, rather than policy or IT division matters.
"Both the ECs have stated that Shri Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Admn), has issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned. Further, the aforementioned ECs have stated that this has happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all concerned officers against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission," a Cabinet note provided in the RTI response said.
The Commissioners had flagged that Garg's actions were a clear violation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
A Cabinet note prepared on the complaint on August 3 had said, "In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue. Accordingly, a draft DO is put up for approval, please."
The next day, another draft note said acting on complaints raised by two Election Commissioners against an officer, without official communication from the Election Commission as a whole, could be construed as "interference in the functioning of the constitutional body".
"The Commission is a Constitutional Body and is insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner. The working and functioning of the Commission are governed by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission. The above communications are from the Election Commissioners in their individual capacity and, while they must be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole," it said.
Although Maneesh Garg has been appointed by the ACC (Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), he is now an officer of the Election Commission of India and his work and conduct are to be regulated and monitored by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission of India, the note said.
Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the Commission is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, with differences of opinion decided by majority, the Cabinet note observed.
"Election Commissioners have sent these communications for appropriate action; however, in the absence of any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate. It may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the Constitutional Body. Hence, it would be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both Election Commissioners with a copy to PPS to CEC for information of CEC," it had said.
The draft note signed by the Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan was also marked to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and Establishment Officer, for placing the matter on record, which will "enable it to be taken into account in future decision-making regarding the officer".
A copy of the acknowledgement letter signed by Somanathan was also sent to both the Election Commissioners.
The Commissioners had alleged that Garg issued an order revising the work allocation among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general and equivalent officers without discussing or informing the Commission or the Commissioners concerned.
They said this was done despite repeated oral and written instructions against making such changes without the Commission's prior discussion or approval. Joshi also stated that when he sought the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided to him.
Both Commissioners alleged that the action was contrary to established practice and violated provisions of the Act.
The Cabinet Secretary had acknowledged the receipt of the two letters on August 5, 2026, and marked copies to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.