I’m victim of political rivalry, CVC tells SC
Chief Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas finally broke his silence on inclusion of his name in the decades-old palmolein import scam of Kerala, claiming that he had been a “victim” of political rivalry between the UDF and LDF alliances in the state.
Since inclusion of his name in the list of co-accused in the chargesheet against late CM K. Karunakar has been made the main ground for quashing of his appointment as CVC, Mr Thomas in his reply filed ahead of apex court’s crucial hearing, stated that the charges against him were the “fallout of political battle” in Kerala between the two political fronts.
While claiming that his appointment was made as per the provisions of the CVC Act, he refuted the allegation of “cover up” in the 2G scam case, saying he had no role in the allotment of spectrum licences.
Describing dragging his name in the controversy as “unfortunate”, Mr Thomas said he was in fact “caught in the political battle” between late CM K. Karunakaran and the incumbent V.S. Achuthananadan though as a public servant he had always maintained the “highest standard of integrity” throughout his career as a bureaucrat.
“Grave injustice is done to an officer who has maintained the highest standard of integrity and has unfortunately been dragged into a controversy between two political leaders which has subjected him to severe attacks on his honesty and reputation,” the affidavit.
“The sword of prosecution, which is purely based on political overtones, has been hanging over his head for almost 20 years,” he said.
The appointment of Mr Thomas was challenged in a PIL by NGO, Centre for PILs and some prominent citizens, including former Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh in the wake of his name figuring in the chargesheet in palmolein import scam of 1992-93.
Mr Thomas took strong exception to usage of the word “dishonest, dubious and suspect” in the petition, asserting that no forum, including judiciary, has put him to test and drawing such conclusion was without any basis.
“Such statements are patently defamatory and are unfortunately used casually and which get wide publicity in the media,” said the affidavit drawn by his counsel and senior advocate K.K. Venugopal.
Post new comment