Verdict not an indictment of Thomas in palm oil case: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Mar 4, 2011, 03.53am IST
====================================================
NEW DELHI: The selection to a sensitive post like CVC can't be made on the basis of a bare bio-data, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, while defining the CVC loftily as the " Integrity Commission of India", to which only a person without a blemish should be appointed.
Thomas' bio, it pointed out, didn't tell the members about the pending palmolien chargesheet or the six file notings on the records of the DoPT for initiation of penal action against him.
Justice Kapadia said, "From the files we find that there are at least six notings of the DoPT between June 26, 2000 and November 2, 2004 which has recommended initiation of penalty proceedings against P J Thomas and yet in the clearance given by the CVC on October 6, 2008 and in the brief prepared by DoPT on September 1, 2010 and placed before the high-powered committee, there is no reference to the earlier notings of the then DoPT nor any reason given as to why CVC has changed its view while granting vigilance clearance on October 6, 2008."
The court proceeded to lay down stringent guidelines for future CVC appointments. It said the CVC's post should not be confined to civil servant. However, it disagreed with petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan on the need for unanimity in selection of the CVC, saying this would give the leader of Opposition a veto and render the selection process unworkable.
NEW DELHI: The selection to a sensitive post like CVC can't be made on the basis of a bare bio-data, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, while defining the CVC loftily as the " Integrity Commission of India", to which only a person without a blemish should be appointed.
Thomas' bio, it pointed out, didn't tell the members about the pending palmolien chargesheet or the six file notings on the records of the DoPT for initiation of penal action against him.
Justice Kapadia said, "From the files we find that there are at least six notings of the DoPT between June 26, 2000 and November 2, 2004 which has recommended initiation of penalty proceedings against P J Thomas and yet in the clearance given by the CVC on October 6, 2008 and in the brief prepared by DoPT on September 1, 2010 and placed before the high-powered committee, there is no reference to the earlier notings of the then DoPT nor any reason given as to why CVC has changed its view while granting vigilance clearance on October 6, 2008."
The court proceeded to lay down stringent guidelines for future CVC appointments. It said the CVC's post should not be confined to civil servant. However, it disagreed with petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan on the need for unanimity in selection of the CVC, saying this would give the leader of Opposition a veto and render the selection process unworkable.
The court did clarify that this judgment need not be considered as any indictment of Thomas (who was later telecom secretary) either in the palm oil import case or in the 2G scam.
(source: Verdict not an indictment of Thomas in palm oil case: SC-The Times of India)
(source: Verdict not an indictment of Thomas in palm oil case: SC-The Times of India)
=================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment