Ahead of a crucial hearing on Thursday, P.J. Thomas has defended his appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner contending that an inquiry into whether all documents were placed before the selection committee, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is not at all relevant.
In his additional affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in response to the petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others challenging his appointment, Mr. Thomas said he had all qualifications for the job as required under Section 3 of the CVC Act.
(The controversy is over whether or not documents relating to his having been chargesheeted in the Kerala palmolein import scam case were presented before the committee, which finalised his appointment as CVC.)
“The inquiry about the documents placed before the three-member committee may not be relevant in the light of the fact that all the names on the shortlist were of Secretaries to the government, who, by virtue of their process of selection as Secretaries are deemed to be of impeccable integrity.”
Mr. Thomas said: “I am unaware of the procedures adopted by the Government of India in forwarding the three names to the committee. However, at the time of oral hearing [in the court on January 27] the Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati submitted a list of individuals from whom the present shortlist was prepared and in which a reference was made to Sujit Banerjee, who was a 1972 batch IAS officer, who was senior to me.”
Vigilance clearance
By the time the names were considered, Mr. Banerjee had already superannuated on July 31, 2010 and out of 40 IAS officers the government chose at that time he was the seniormost. “It would not have been appropriate to have entirely ignored me, especially when I had received vigilance clearance as well.”
Pointing out that he was not the only officer against whom a case was pending, Mr. Thomas said charge sheets were filed or a complaint was pending against eight others. Out of the nine officers, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) cleared eight officers. This would clearly show that every single officer in the zone of consideration had complaints or charge sheets pending, “but it is the CVC that looks into the entire material and decides whether clearance ought to be granted or not,” Mr. Thomas said.
“An impression has been created that my case is a unique one and that I alone suffer some taint against my name. Clearly, it is routine for officers in the discharge of their duties to have cases slapped against them, many of which are trumped up or politically motivated.”
Mr. Thomas said: “In an environment where bureaucrats bear the brunt of protests against governmental action, it is necessary that an objective view be taken of how we officers function.”
In his case, Mr. Thomas said, “the PM has ordered that in view of the fact that there are no disciplinary proceedings, the request of the State [Kerala] government regarding withdrawal of the request for sanction of prosecution is noted.”
DoT post
On his appointment as Secretary in the Department of Telecommunications and the controversy over the 2G spectrum licence, he said the allocation had already taken place in January 2008, prior to his appointment on October 1, 2009. He had “taken all steps as required in discharging his duties as Secretary in the Telecom Ministry without in any way obfuscating any process. It was during my tenure that the 3G/Broad Band Wireless spectrum auction was conducted which resulted in a record revenue of Rs. 1,07,000 crores to the government which is not being highlighted by the petitioners”
“Unblemished record”
Pointing out that his reputation had taken a beating at the hands of the media, Mr. Thomas said: “I have been held out to the public as a `tainted official. This is rather tragic as my record during 37 years of service has been without blemish.”
