CVC PJ Thomas Loses His Job – Palmoleine, Harmful For Career Growth
FROM among all the bureaucrats in the Country, the Government could not find a single one, without a criminal case against him, to be appointed as the Central Vigilance Commissioner and so a High Power Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, recommended the name of PJ Thomas, Accused No. 8 in criminal case CC 6 of 2003 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram with respect to the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code [" Palmolein case"]. Thomas is also alleged to have played a big part in the cover-up of the 2G spectrum allocation .
In spite of the opposition from the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha , Thomas got the appointment, which was challenged in the Supreme Court.
A cartoonist Jose Joseph carried a cartoon in his blog with a Palmolein bib carrying a ‘STATUTORY WARNING' –“ Outdated case of Palmolin will be damaging for lifelong. Harmful for Career growth”
The Supreme Court reiterated that the menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities .
The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Thomas and remarked,
Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. However, they are accountable for the legality of such decisions. While deciding this case, we must keep in mind the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review.
The system of governance established by the Constitution is based on distribution of powers and functions amongst the three organs of the State, one of them being the Executive whose duty is to enforce the laws made by the Parliament and administer the country through various statutory bodies like CVC which is empowered to perform the function of vigilance administration. Thus, we are concerned with the institution and its integrity including institutional competence and functioning and not the desirability of the candidate alone who is going to be the Central Vigilance Commissioner, though personal integrity is an important quality. It is the independence and impartiality of the institution like CVC which has to be maintained and preserved in larger interest of the rule of law.
In its functions, the CVC is similar to Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, Parliamentary Committees etc. Thus, while making the recommendations, the service conditions of the candidate being a public servant or civil servant in the past is not the sole criteria. The HPC must also take into consideration the question of institutional competency into account. If the selection adversely affects institutional competency and functioning then it shall be the duty of the HPC not to recommend such a candidate. Thus, the institutional integrity is the primary consideration which the HPC is required to consider while making recommendation under Section 4 for appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner. In the present case, this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the HPC while recommending the name of Shri P.J . Thomas for appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Appointment to the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner must satisfy not only the eligibility criteria of the candidate but also the decision making process of the recommendation.
But why couldn't Thomas resign and save the Government the embarrassment? Maybe his presence was required to see that his prosecution is not continued!
We bring you this landmark judgement of the Supreme Court delivered yesterday. Please see Breaking News.