NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Monday declined the Arvind Kejriwal government’s plea to restrain MK Meena from working as anti-corruption branch chief. Allowing Meena to continue in office, Justice V P Vaish, however, said Meena must discharge his duties “in accordance with law”.

The government urged HC to prevent Meena from taking out the FIR records from the ACB headquarters and remove the paramilitary personnel posted there. Appearing for the government, senior advocate Indira Jaising maintained that Meena needs to be restrained from pressuring ACB officials, but Justice Vaish wondered if the ACB can function “smoothly” if the senior cop is restrained from working.

READ ALSO: Delhi HC refuses to restrain ACB chief

The court issued notice to the Centre seeking its reply in two weeks’ time to the charges of interference in the working of ACB, levelled by the AAP government. The court has now clubbed the latest plea of the government with the ongoing litigation challenging the Centre’s notification giving LG Najeeb Jung absolute power to appoint bureaucrats in the national capital. Both cases are now expected to come up for hearing on August 11.

READ ALSO: Delhi govt moves HC against ACB chief appointment

The court further rejected another prayer of the government to make Meena an individual party to its petition challenging constitutional validity of the Centre’s May 21 notification.

In its application, the Delhi government alleged Meena had been “misusing his powers to browbeat and threaten officials of ACB and the vigilance department”. It has cited the example of its appointee S S Yadav who recently accused Meena of threatening and pressuring him.

READ ALSO: 'CM sent secret note to Rajnath over ACB row'

Jaising said during the 49-day tenure last year, the Kejriwal government had lodged 21 cases but “no cases have been lodged after June 4, 2015 due to M K Meena’s taking charge on June 8, 2015”.

She alleged the “Centre has been repeatedly attempting to interfere with and hamper the smooth functioning of the ACB”. Jaising said, “On numerous occasions, he (Meena) has put pressure on ACB officers to transfer all cases of corruption involving police personnel from ACB to Delhi Police. We want these intimidating tactics be stopped.”

She sought an interim order to ensure that the ACB is allowed to function smoothly. She also argued that the anti-graft wing is being “prevented” from probing acts of corruption and misuse or abuse of public office, to shield certain people.

“The objective appears to be, to prejudice the attempts of the elected government to uproot corruption from the national capital, hamper and scuttle an ongoing investigation and compromise crucial and sensitive evidence,” the senior lawyer said.

On his part, additional solicitor-general Sanjay Jain, representing the Centre, pointed out that ACB is a police station and falls within the Centre’s purview in Delhi. He said Centre is fully empowered to post an eligible officer to head it and in any case Meena is a joint commissioner, and “not some inspector”.

Jain said the Delhi government’s order recalling appointment of Meena had been cancelled by the LG, who has said that it was “void ab initio” as the order was passed without taking approval from the competent authority.

