Court questions appointment of Officer on Special Duty to Sikkim CM, orders counter-affidavits in PIL

In a significant development, the Sikkim High Court has raised serious concerns over the appointment of Sunil Saraogi as the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Chief Minister of Sikkim, Government of Sikkim. The court has ordered the filing of counter-affidavits by the concerned parties in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment. The PIL alleges that Saraogi's appointment violates the provisions of the Sikkim Public Services Act, 2006.

The issue at hand revolves around the appointment of Saraogi as the OSD to the Chief Minister, which, according to the petitioner, is in contravention of the Sikkim Public Services Act. The petitioner contends that at the time of his engagement as the OSD, Saraogi was practicing as an Advocate registered with the Bar Council of West Bengal. The petitioner argues that this appointment is in violation of the provisions of the Sikkim Public Services Act, which explicitly prohibits the engagement of practicing advocates as government officers.

Furthermore, the petitioner brings attention to Saraogi's subsequent appointment as the Executive Chairman and Director of Teesta Urja Ltd., a public company substantially owned by the Government of Sikkim. The petitioner claims that this appointment also runs afoul of the relevant provisions of the Sikkim State Public Services Act, 2006.

Representing the Government of Sikkim, Additional Advocate General, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, has submitted that the state government may not have been aware of Saraogi's status as a practicing advocate at the time of his appointment as the OSD. It appears that the appointment was made without due knowledge of the legal restrictions placed on engaging practicing advocates as government officers.

During the court proceedings, the Bar Council of India, as the respondent in the case, represented by Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran, informed the court that they have already taken action against Saraogi and issued a prohibitory order against him.

In response to the PIL, Saraogi's advocate, Mr. Rinzing Dorjee Tamang, conveyed his client's intention to file a counter-affidavit to address the allegations raised in the case.

After considering the arguments presented by all parties, the court acknowledged that there are both legal and propriety concerns surrounding Saraogi's appointment as the OSD to the Chief Minister. In the interest of justice, the court has granted a fortnight's time to the respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits, with an additional week provided for any subsequent replies.

The court made it explicitly clear that the ongoing proceedings will not hinder the Bar Council of India's independent action against Saraogi, as warranted by the law. The court's intervention ensures that both the legal and propriety aspects of the appointment are thoroughly examined and that a fair opportunity is provided to all parties involved.

The case has been scheduled for further consideration on June 8, 2023, under an appropriate heading.