How can accused be Vigilance chief: SC

The Bench said it will go through the file and posted the matter after two weeks.

“We will sit together and go through the file,” the Bench also comprising Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said.

The name of Thomas figures in the chargesheet filed in a palmoleine export case.

After the file was placed before it,the apex court Bench said it would like to know whether the eligibility criteria of impeccable integrity has been met.

The Bench told Attorney General G E Vahanvati that the issue as to how Thomas will function as CVC when his name is there in a chargesheet will crop up at every stage.

The AG sought to clarify that Thomas was not involved in the palmoleine export case and the sanction to prosecute him had not been processed.

The Bench,however,said,”Let us proceed on the assumption that at every stage there will be allegations that you should not process a file as CVC as you are accused in a criminal case. How will you function as CVC? In every case the CBI has to report to him,” the Bench pointed out.

“Under the service jurisprudence,a person cannot even be considered for promotions when a chargesheet is pending against him,” said the bench.

“At this stage as a chargesheet is pending against him since 2002,he is not even considered to be promoted. We are only suggesting whether he will be able to function as CVC. He himself will be an embarrassment,” it said.

“Since this matter is very important,we will structure our order on this basis,” it said.

The Bench clarified it was not on the merits of the case but it only wanted to know if the whole procedure including the criteria of impeccable integrity was followed in the appointment of Thomas as CVC.

Maintaining that the whole process was followed,the Attorney General told the court that if such allegations are taken into consideration,every judicial appointment may come into scrutiny.

The Bench said the palmoleine case was handled by the state wing of the CVC and Thomas is heading the central organisation.

The AG said J M Lyngdoh,who filed the petition,had himself prepared Thomas’ ACR stating that his integrity was beyond doubt and yet he filed the petition.

Refuting allegations in a petition filed by civil societies — Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause — questioning Thomas’ appointment as CVC,Vahanvati had said the statements made in the petition were not correct.

Earlier,the apex court had decided to examine these file on appointment of Thomas,whose name is also allegedly involved in the cover-up of 2G spectrum scam,saying it wanted to know if eligibility criteria had been followed.

The Bench had also said that it would like to see if the consultation process has been followed.

The petition by the two civil societies had contended that Thomas was considered for the crucial post despite objection from the Leader of the Opposition.

The petitioners had contended that Thomas could not be considered as a person of “impeccable integrity” as he was chargesheeted in the Palmoleine export scam when he was Kerala’s Secretary in the state Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and had secured bail from the local court.

The PIL said he also could not be appointed as CVC on account of “conflict of interest” as till recently he was serving as the Secretary in Telecom Ministry and there was allegation that he was involved in the cover-up of the 2G spectrum scam,which,according to the petitioners,has caused a loss of Rs 70,000 to the state exchequer.

The civil societies have sought the court’s direction to declare as illegal Thomas’ appointment on the ground that there was alleged violation of Section 4 of Central Vigilance Commission Act as the Prime Minister and the Home Minister insisted on his name despite objection by the Leader of the Opposition,which shows the government had decided in advance to appoint him.

“The Prime Minister and the Home Minister recommended the name of Thomas for selection despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition objected to his name being selected.

So,the Leader of Opposition was forced to record her dissent. Hence,her presence was rendered meaningless in the appointment,” the petition alleged.

It further said,”When the country’s highest court (apex court) and Parliament held that the CVC would be selected by the three-member committee including the Leader of the Opposition,it was patently obvious that the said committee would decide by unanimity or consensus. It was no where said that the committee would decide by majority.”

“The latter interpretation would make the presence of the Leader of the Opposition meaningless as the Prime Minister and the Home Minister would always be ad-idem and the person selected would be a government nominee. Therefore,the manner in which Thomas was selected makes his appointment illegal,bad in law and hence void ab-initio.”