Re: [HumJanenge] THOMAS WAS APPOINTED AS CVC DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF VIGILANCE CASE

Mr Sarbajit ji, if Sushmswaraj had placed a dissenting note and the PM had overruled it, at the point of time two things happen  one is The prime Minister, as a Minister in the Cabinet, has contravened his OATH OF OFFICE TO uphold the constitution and thereby the laws of the Country. The reason could be anything.  He has committed a breach of OATH under Art 75(4) of the Constitution.  There can be no doubt about it.    Since the Prsident of India is the appointing authority for the Prime Minister, it is prudent to directly write to the Presidents Secetary marked as secret and official and for personal attention of the President, that all this ruckus happened because the prime minister ignored the legal provisions of ineligibity of IAs officer for the post of CVC and since the Constitution is silent about the repurcussion of contravening the Oath, it is for the President to suitably devise what is the action to be taken against the person who having taken Oath and contravened it.   If no action is or can be taken recommend to the President to scrap this provision.  Agtleast let us be honest to ourselves and no hypocrites. The other phase of it is the Prime Minister would not have suo moto appointed the CVC inspite of the disenting note of Sushma swaraj.  Some vested interest has worked behind the scene and the Secretary of the department which recommended his appointment on a note sheet, should be framed a charge sheet under the Civil ServiceRules by the Preisdent or Prime Ministers Office for misguiding and not being careful about the legal provision before recommending, inspite of disenting note of S.S.  If punitive action is taken on such person, he would be careful and others willl understand what a Government means. Otherwise the civil serice Officers will take it for granted and their attitude should not be "chal tha hai".  Secondly, Smt.Sushma Swaraj, on her note being ignored, she could have raised this decision during zero hour in Parliament and focuessed the attention of Parliament along with her reasons for dissent.   She has committed an improproiety of not purusing the issue and taking it to a logical end.   All Parlimentarians, irrespective of party affiliation, Sec. Art 19 of Constitution, if they are honest to themselves, must take up the issue in Parliament, that is what Parliament is meant for.  Knowing not pursing and not taking further action under Law or under the delegated power from the People to represent them, this person has become an abettor of the decision.    Just putting a note is not the end of it.  The BJP president could be contacted in writing for this lacuna in the attitude of the MP and questioned whether the partys policy is such or would they want to be pro active and guard against impropriety. dwaraknathdm

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:06 AM, dte <dte@cseindia.org> wrote:

SRY, SOME ONE BULL SHITTING

Ms SHUSHMA SWARAJ, Leader of Opposition in LOK SABHA as the member of the Selection PANEL had specificaly brought out the outstanding case against Mr THOMAS to the PM Dr MANMOHAN SINGH and placed her dissenting note on this account. So pleading ignorance by any-one after this stage is all Bullshit

On 6/20/2011 9:21 PM, Dwarakanath wrote:

Friends, this blaming game or pleading ignorance or innocence is a clear case of either favouritism or irresponsibilit.   All concerned in this decision making, beingg people in a position to get whatever information they wanted, before making a decision are found to be wanting in their assigned responsibilities.  If it were officials from any Ministries, ACTION UNDER their service rules must be initiated and whatever punishment or holding back increment or entry in service record MUST BE MADE.  If it was a MP who was found wanting to apply their full mind, they have the prerogative and power to take up the case that the vital information was not provided to them before making a decision and hence a breach of privilege and must initiate action thereon on the person responsible.   We cannot keep mum in this country unless we are a silent partners in the corruption and nepotism happening all around us.  If people in position and responsibility were to come clean they must take up their issue seriously, without resorting back to party politics compromising national interest.  The people have voted to them, as a delegation of their power and it is not that the elected people had the power suo moto.  If they cannot respond to the demands of the citizens under the guise of a certain volume of demand is needed for a certain initiation of decision, let them go for national referndum wherever it is needed.   

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

PJ Thomas was not cleared to serve on central deputation'                                                                                        Economic Times, 13.6.2011. NEW DELHI: After denying any communique from the Kerala government on the pending vigilance case against former CVC P J Thomas , the Centre has now made public a letter from the state which says he was not cleared to serve on central deputation. The Central Public Information Officer of the Department of Personnel and Training in an RTI response had earlier said no such letter was with them. But during the first appeal, Deputy Secretary R K Mittal overturned the previous reply. "After going through the relevant papers and official records, it appears that the CPIO was not able to link up the letter with the file concerned. Accordingly, CPIO is directed to refer to file...and provide the relevant information," Mittal said in his order. After the decision, the letter dated March 11, 2008 from the chief secretary of Kerala objecting to Thomas' deputation to the Centre was provided to activist S C Agrawal. The communique has punctured the claims of DoPT that it was unaware about the ongoing vigilance case against Thomas while short-listing his name for the post of anti-corruption watchdog Central Vigilance Commissioner. "P J Thomas, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government (Kerala), had applied for Central Deputation in 1988, but was not selected for appointment. Subsequently after 1992, he had expressed his willingness for central deputation, but was not considered because of ongoing vigilance enquiry/case. Because of this he was not considered so far. "The case has not been finalised yet. I may inform tha Thomas could not work at the Centre as he was not recommended for the same by the state government ," the letter from the chief secretary said. 60-year-old Thomas, a 1973-batch IAS officer of the Kerala cadre, was appointed chief secretary of the state in 2007 before moving to the Centre in 2009 as secretary, parliamentary affairs, telecom secretary and finally central vigilance commissioner. The government had appointed Thomas as CVC despite dissension by Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj, who was one of the three-members in the selection committee comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P Chidambaram. The apex court had later quashed the appointment of Thomas as CVC holding that the recommendation made by the panel, headed by the Prime Minister, did not consider the relevant material and, therefore, its advice "does not exist in law". The court had scrapped his appointment as CVC on a PIL by Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and retired bureaucrats and police officials, including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh , challenging his appointment in view of a criminal case pending against him. Later, the prime minister had said he was unaware of the pending case against Thomas and virtually blamed Chavan, who was MoS (Personnel) at that time, for the fiasco, contending that the key information was not provided. Reacting to it, Chavan said vigilance clearance was the responsibility of the state government. He had also said the central deputation of Thomas was on the basis of documents provided by the Kerala government. This argument was termed "baseless" by the then Chief Minister of Kerala V S Achuthanandan who said the Centre was duly informed about pending vigilance case against Thomas in 2008.

--  AK Acharjee Mgr -Circulation  email dte@cseindia.org website  www.downtoearth.org.in