New Delhi, Feb 1 (IANS) Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) P.J. Thomas Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it was a matter of routine that, in discharge of their official responsibilities, the officers are slapped with cases which are ‘trumped up or politically motivated’.
‘It is a routine for officers in the discharge of their duties to have cases slapped against them, many of which are trumped up or politically motivated,’ Thomas said in his additional affidavit filed Tuesday in the apex court.
Thomas filed the additional affidavit in response to the additional affidavit filed by petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL).
The CPIL has challenged Thomas’ appointment as the CVC on the ground that he was facing charge sheet in the palm oil import case in Kerala and the state government had sanctioned his prosecution for it.
Thomas said he was not the only one who was given a clean chit by the CVC in 2008. There were seven other bureaucrats who were also given the clean chit by the anti-corruption watchdog that year, he claimed. Only one officer was not cleared.
Giving the details of the cases that each of the nine officers faced, Thomas said that this ‘clearly shows that virtually every single officer in the zone of considerations 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’.
In his affidavit, the CVC said over the past 37 years he has an unblemished record of service, and despite that he is now being damned as a tainted officer.
‘An impression has been created that my case is a unique one, and that I alone suffer some taint against my name,’ Thomas said in the affidavit.
Thomas said that when the panel for the selection of CVC was made, the then secretary of tourism and 1972 batch Indian Administrative Services officer Sujit Banarjee was the senior most but had superannuated July 31, 2010 and perhaps that is why he was not considered, though under the CVC Act there was no such bar.
Addressing the question by the court whether Thomas had any experience in investigation of cases, the CVC said that he was the chief secretary in Kerala for 16 months.
‘The vigilance (department) and police in the entire state is under the direct control of the chief secretary’ and it is he who initiates ‘the annual confidential reports of both the director general of police and the director of vigilance investigations.’
Taking note of the plea by petitioner’s senior counsel Prashant Bhushan that Thomas’ integrity was not in doubt but he was not pro-active in fighting corruption, the CVC said: ‘It is my clear intention, one fortified by my oath, that there will be no fear or favour in my conduct, and that it will be independent and honest.’
Thomas in his affidavit criticised the media, both print and electronic, for tarnished his reputation as he did not speak to them amid the ongoing controversy over his appointment.
‘I had been repeatedly approached by the print and electronic media to set out my defence of the case to them’, which ‘I steadfastly refused, as I had decided that I would place my side of the case before the court’.
This was taken as if ‘I have no defence whatsoever, as a result my reputation has taken a beating at their hands’.
‘The consequence is that I have been held out to the public as a ‘tainted official’. This is rather tragic as my record during 37 years has been without blemish’, the affidavit said.
In his earlier affidavit filed last week, Thomas said he was a victim of being caught in a political crossfire between the then Kerala chief minister K. Karunakaran and the then opposition Communist Party of India-Marxist leader V.S. Achuthanandan, who is now the chief minister.
