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

APPOINTMENT OF CVC

But principle of unanimity may also create problem.

Therefore the best is that the selection committee should be such that by itself it does not give

majority to a section. May see the different statutory provision for formation of  selection committe in National Human Rights Commission Act. But every thing can not be fool proof. Allegations still are made. Refer to the allegation of Vineet Narain in one of the channels on TV regarding the selection of the present Chairman Human Rights Commission.

With apology to all .

Justice A.K.Srivastava

Former judge of Delhi High Court

 

---

From: Mukund Apte <mdapte@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>; M K Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2011 17:45:30
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] THOMAS WAS APPOINTED AS CVC DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF VIGILANCE CASE


      Dear Sir,
      The appointment of Shri Thomas as CVC was done as laid down in our Constitution by the Government as per norms of Democracy with majority vote 2:1 in the selection Committee. Our Constitution lays down that a committee of 3 with a rep of Opposition should select one nominee from the panel presented by the Government to the Committee for the post. One member from opposition (in the Committee) opposed Shri Thomas. The Committee however with 2:1 did select Shri Thomas. Was not it done by Democracy? Yes it was. But it was proved to be embarrassing for the Nation.
      The problem is with Democracy. Once Committee is formed it is quite natural that the members from Government will be in majority (in the Committee). By observing majority principle of Democracy at any time Government can select any person (from the panel) that it wants. Actually what Constitution intends is that that person from the panel will be selected who has Least objection from all members of the Committee. That means the selection must be by unanimity in the Committee. Government surely may find this 'inconvenient'. And hence Democratic principle is found very useful for the Government. This is the condition in all such selections.
      Such Committee selections therefore must be by Unanimity to avoid such embarrassment to the Nation.
      With regards to all,
      -----Mukund Apte   

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> 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.