Raj Bhavan vs Secretariat – Governance enters the grey zone?
AI generated photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, Oct 30,
The ongoing administrative arrangements in Himachal Pradesh have now taken a constitutional turn, with Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla seeking a formal report from Chief Secretary Sanjay Gupta on the legality and propriety of appointing acting officers to key posts of governance. The Governor’s communication, issued in response to a written complaint by a citizen activist, has brought into focus the legal boundaries governing temporary appointments to statutory and constitutional offices in the State.
For the first time in Himachal’s administrative history, the three highest positions in governance — the Chief Secretary (CS), the Director General of Police (DGP), and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests–Head of Forest Force (PCCF–HoFF) — are all being held by officers with additional charge rather than substantive, regular appointments. Legal experts say this practice may not stand the test of administrative law if challenged, as it raises questions about continuity of authority, decision-making powers, and compliance with service rules under the All India Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and relevant departmental regulations.
Following the retirement of former Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, the State Government appointed Sanjay Gupta as Acting Chief Secretary on an interim basis. The DGP’s post, vacated by Dr. Atul Verma, has been held by Ashok Tiwari with additional charge for over five months, while Sanjay Sood continues to officiate as PCCF–HoFF since the retirement of Pawanesh Kumar. In a related instance, Praveen Kumar Gupta has been appointed as Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board on deputation, which too has drawn questions under deputation and tenure norms.
The complaint addressed to Raj Bhavan reportedly highlighted that prolonged functioning of key offices under acting or additional charge appointments undermines both the rule of law and institutional independence, potentially violating the constitutional scheme envisaged under Articles 154 and 162, which place executive authority squarely under the Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister. The Governor’s decision to seek a report, therefore, assumes significance as it invokes his power to ensure that the State’s executive actions remain within the constitutional and legal framework.
Significantly, the Governor on Thursday morning in media statements also made a public remark regarding the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh University (HPU), stating that “the process of such appointments must strictly adhere to the provisions of the HPU Act and relevant University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines.” His statement indicates a widening scope of constitutional scrutiny by the Raj Bhavan, not only over bureaucratic appointments but also over statutory positions governed by specific legal frameworks. Observers say this is a clear signal that the Governor intends to reinforce procedural compliance across institutions functioning under the State’s authority.
Retired bureaucrats and constitutional analysts view the Governor’s communication as a legitimate exercise of oversight rather than interference. Former IAS officer Deepak Sanan remarked that this is the first time the State’s top administrative and police positions have been left to officers holding additional charge. He added that such key offices demand full-time appointees vested with complete authority to act independently, as envisaged under service conduct rules and administrative law principles.
Legal observers note that while the Governor cannot ordinarily intervene in routine executive matters, he is constitutionally empowered to seek information under Article 167(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the Chief Minister furnish such details as the Governor may call for. The present correspondence, therefore, appears to fall within the Governor’s constitutional prerogative to ensure that the State’s administrative system functions in accordance with established norms and statutory procedure.
The issue has also acquired a political undertone, with the Opposition alleging that the government’s reliance on temporary arrangements amounts to administrative neglect and breach of service law obligations. However, from a legal standpoint, the more pertinent question is whether prolonged “acting” appointments can withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged before a constitutional court. The Supreme Court, in several judgments including State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (1997) and Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2000), has observed that officiating or stop-gap arrangements cannot become a substitute for regular appointments to statutory posts.
With the Governor now having sought a formal report, the matter may soon test the legal limits of executive discretion in making temporary administrative and institutional postings. If the explanation from the Chief Secretary fails to satisfy Raj Bhavan, the issue could evolve into a reference of administrative propriety — and possibly even judicial examination — on whether governance through interim authority aligns with the constitutional mandate of responsible government.
As Himachal Pradesh continues to operate with its top administrative, police, and forest offices under temporary charge — the situation highlights a deeper constitutional concern. The answer may well determine the evolving relationship between the Raj Bhavan and the State Secretariat, as governance in Himachal Pradesh treads further into a constitutional grey zone.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.