While striking down the appointment of CVC P.J. Thomas, the Supreme Court in its verdict has pointed out how the government had slept over the palmolein scam case against him for eight years but showed unprecedented alacrity in empanelling him for appointing a secretary at the Centre in 2008.
In fact his 2008 empanelment by department of personnel and training laid the foundation for his selection as CVC as his credentials for becoming the country’s watchdog against corruption were evaluated on the basis of the 2008 empanelment, the top court pointed out.
The SC analysing the whole issue since registration of FIR in palm scam case in May 1996 till Mr Thomas’ selection as CVC — by the high powered committee led by the PM — found that the DoPT virtually had brushed the issue under the carpet, doing effectively nothing between December 31,1999 and September 2007 when Mr Thomas was appointed chief secretary of Kerala.
The verdict written by CJI S.H. Kapadia himself, quoted extensively from government records and said “we find that there are at least six notings of the DoPT betw-een June 2000 and November 2004, which had recommended initiation of penalty proceedings against Mr Thomas and yet in the clearance given by the CVC on October 6, 2008, and in the brief prepared by DoPT on September 1, 2010 placed before HPC, there is no reference to earlier notings of DoPT, nor any reason has been given why the CVC had changed its views while granting vigilance clearance (to Thomas).” Mr Thomas was brought to the Centre with the appointment as secretary of parliamentary affairs in January 2009 on the basis of the same vigilance clearance of CVC given in October 2008.
But prior to that, the issue of granting sanction for his prosecution remained pending with the Centre for five years between December 1999 and December 2004 without any action.
After receiving a request from Kerala government for sanction, it appeared that various authorities processed the file and in January 2001 a note was put up by concerned authority in the Union government that a departmental inquiry be held against Mr Thomas.
The note indicated that the government felt that prosecution might not succeed against Mr Thomas due to “lack of evidence” and the matter was referred to the CVC, which in June 2003 recommended imposition of “major penalty” on him.
“Despite the opinion of the CVC, the matter was kept pending for five years and a note was again put up on February 24, 2004 on similar lines,” the top court said.