DAINIK NATION BUREAU
A bureaucrat who automatically gets shifted to work under the election commission (EC) once the election model code of conduct (MCC) comes into force, is under stress because he was sacked from his post but another officer who had allowed violation of the model code of conduct is still enjoying his post. An officer who was posted in the district was sacked because a candidate’s picture came into media with him displaying his gun in a public platform.
Taking cognisance of it, the EC had sacked the officer concerned, sending a message across the state that a zero tolerance stance would be maintained towards negligence. In the meantime, a case resurfaced regarding a senior most leader’s rally conducted by a political party purportedly without procuring proper permission from the department concerned. Now the sacked officer has been asking whether anyone will tell him why he was sacked from his post. If he is guilty of negligence towards violation of MCC, then what is it that the incumbent has done? If the incumbent allowed the said function during imposition of section 144, then where did the sacked official go wrong?
To justify his claim he says that being an officer of the area he is bound to take action against the person if he/she is caught violating MCC and he took cognisance by asking that an FIR be lodged against the person visible in the picture. Later, he was sacked but the incumbent still enjoying his post — why?, asks the aggrieved civil servant.