Commerce scraps 259 show cause notices to patent officers: ‘Not in line with procedure’

While the ministry “expressed displeasure and directed the CGPDTM not to initiate proposal for transfer of Group A officers until further orders”, it did not take any decision on the show cause notices.

The Association then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). On May 27, the CAT principal bench asked the ministry to consider the Association’s complaint alleging “illegitimate show cause notices and intimidation of officers”.

In an office memorandum issued on June 26, the ministry withdrew the show cause notices. Saying that it had examined the notices, it said it was of the opinion that they were not in “line of established procedure”. “Therefore, it has been decided by the competent authority to withdraw the 259 show cause notices issued by the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to the 259 officials,” it said.

The officials had contended that such notices, issued without the authority of law, had made it difficult for them to perform their quasi-judicial work.

Advocate Gyanant Kumar Singh, who represented the Association, contended that the CGPDTM could not issue the show cause notices as the competent authority was their appointing authority, which is the ministry. “The applicants are aggrieved as show cause notices to officers recruited by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and appointed by the President of India have been issued without jurisdiction by incompetent authority,” their plea said.

The notices were issued “en masse on three different dates to officers over poor performance even in the absence of any clear yardstick” and “at least 168 of such notices issued on 19-12-2023 and 20-12-2023 bear the same letter number which indicates the premeditated, arbitrary and casual manner in which notices have been issued to harass patent officers,” they said in their plea.

Saying that the notices refer to “imposition of major penalty of demotion even before any disciplinary inquiry”, the plea added that “notices have been issued to office bearers of the association and officers raising their voice against arbitrary implementation of transfer policy and obtaining stay orders from” CAT.

Show cause notice was also issued for quasi-judicial work being performed by patent officers, making it difficult for them to discharge their statutory duties impartially and fearlessly, Singh said.

The CAT directed the ministry to take a call on the complaint in accordance with law by passing a “speaking order” as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. It, however, did not go into the merits of the matter, as the Association only sought a direction to the competent authority to decide its representation.