12 Jan, 2011
The controversy surrounding the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner Mr Polayil Joseph Thomas a Kerala cadre IAS officer of 1973 batch has come to symbolize the deliberate attempt of the government to appoint a tainted CVC so that all the corrupt acts of the government can be covered up. Nothing could be worse for the credibility of any government. Unlike the 2G scam, the onus of the appointment cannot be shifted to some other party on the grounds of coalition politics as the appointment has been made by the big two of the Congress of the Congress Party.
It is also strange that though the BJP and its leader Sushma Swaraj did make it a big issue, for reasons best known it did not go to Court inspite of having a galaxy of senior lawyers as its members and MPS. The matter was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by none other than Prashant Bhushan. Mr Thomas too was made a party and has opened a Pandora’s box by stating that a huge number of criminal cases were pending against many politicians and some inspite of being charge-sheeted and convicted in lower court were members of Parliament . The budget session of parliament is may or may not debate the matter depending on the timing of the verdict of the Supreme Court which has reserved its judgment in the matter.
However, one person who hogged the maximum limelight on this controversial issue is the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Ms Sushma Swaraj. She not only made her dissent letter public but also threatened to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that she had opposed the appointment of Mr Thomas in writing as the CVC because he had been charge sheeted in Palmolein purchase case in 1993 in Kerala. ( For some strange reason as to why her noting of dissent was not made available to Prashant Bhushan is not known).
As Central Vigilance Commission is a constitutional body, the head of this institution wields tremendous powers including the recall of any file and reopening of any cases which in its wisdom it deems fit, the person heading this body should always be of impeccable credentials and that is what two petitioners also filed PIL on these grounds. The petitioners pointed out that at the time of the selection, a charge sheet was pending against Mr. Thomas and the Kerala government had granted initial sanction for his prosecution in the palmolein import case. In 1991-92, Thomas, as the Food Secretary in Kerala, had allegedly allowed the import of Palmolein or edible oil from Malaysia at prices higher than the market rate that led to loss of Rs 2.8-crore revenue for the Kerala exchequer.
Impeccable integrity should indeed be mandatory for the top man heading such a sensitive post as his powers are immense. CVC is a constitutional post and his power and functions include a)
to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) with respect to investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; or offence under CRPC for certain categories of public servants and to give directions to the DSPE for purpose of discharging this responsibility;
b)to review the progress of investigations conducted by the DSPE into offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act;
c)to undertake an inquiry or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any transaction in which a public servant working in any organisation, to which the executive control of the Government of India extends, is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner;
d)to tender independent and impartial advice to the disciplinary and other authorities in disciplinary cases, involving vigilance angle at different stages i.e. investigation, inquiry, appeal, review etc.;
e)to exercise a general check and supervision over vigilance and anti-corruption work in Ministries or Departments of the Govt. of India and other organizations to which the executive power of the Union extends; and
f)to chair the Committee for selection of Director (CBI), Director (Enforcement Directorate) and officers of the level of SP and above in DSPE.
g)to undertake or cause an inquiry into complaints received under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer and recommend appropriate action.
In the case of appointment of Mr Thomas, it is indeed true that both the PM and FM were a party to the decision and the Attorney General complicated the matter further by stating that the ”Charge-sheet matter” was not brought to the notice of either of them. This is too simplistic an explanation. In today’s political milieu, being a pliable or “yes man” is an additional quality for a bureaucrat for appointment at top posts and Mr Thomas is only a example of that. The UPA government could have found a better person to head this Organization !
One of the main reasons on why the opposition found enough ammunition to pillory the government on this count was that Mr Thomas had also served as Telecom Secretary and he was also alleged to have played a role in covering up the 2g spectrum allocations. Given the tremendous powers of the CVC, the opposition decided to raise the bogey of ”taint and charge-sheet on Mr Thomas to sully the image of the UPA government on the impeccable integrity”.
Ironically however, it was the same Ms Susma Swaraj as Information and Broadcasting minister during the NDA regime who was guilty of the same omission when she appointed Mr K S Sarma as the CEO of Prasar Bharti even as there were more serious charges against him. Prasar Bharti may not be as sensitive a body as the office of CVC but it too is an autonomous body and is an important statutory body of the country. The appointment of CEO of Prasar Bharti is done by a three member committee which includes the Vice President, Chairman of the Press Council of India and one nominee of the President of India. The actual work is however done by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
One does not hold any brief either for Mr Thomas or Mr K S Sarma in any way. However, it is pertinent to know the facts in the appointment of both high profile post and the players involved in the exercise as a neutral observer. What is more interesting is that Ms Susma Swaraj was guilty of the same kind of manipulation or acts of omission and commission during the NDA regime as I&B Minister in the appointment of CEO Prasar Bharti as she is blaming the UPA II government being guilty of with regard to the appointment of Mr Thomas.
On closer examination one finds a few similarities in the appointment of Mr Thomas and Mr K S Sarma even as the odds against Sarma were heavier and point to the culpability and role of Mr Swaraj was greater.
1. There was one charge-sheet against Mr P J Thomas in 1993 related to purchase of Palmolein oil while there were at least three charges under investigation by CBI against former Prasar Bharti CEO Mr K S Sarma, an IAS officer of Andhra Cadre as per government records. In at least four cases, PE was registered and followed by regular cases as well.
2. The charge against Mr P J Thomas was related to Kerala government during his stint as officer and there was no charge against him related to any Central Ministry. In case of Mr K S Sarma, all the charges were related to the time he was serving as Director General Doordarshan under the I&B Ministry, yet he was made the CEO of Prasar Bharti on 14 March 2002 .
3. In case of Mr Thomas, the case is as old as 18 years and even there the Vigilance Department had give clearance and NOC for his promotion way back in 1996 whereas in case of Mr K S Sarma, at least three cases were about one year old and yet he was made the CEO. What is all the more shocking is that the closure report all the cases was not filed even after six months from the date he took over as the CEO and no one could believe that Ms Susma Swaraj as the then I&B minister was not aware of that.
4. In case of Mr Thomas, there is nothing to suggest that the then CVC Mr Pratyush Sinha had any role to play in diluting the case but in case of Mr Sarma, there were clear indications of pressure having been brought from influential quarters by a fellow State cadre IAS officer Mr N Vittal who was the CVC then.
5. In this case it is pertinent to recall that within weeks of the CBI filing the closure report, Arun Agrawal, Doordarshan’s former consultant, filed a protest petition in the CBI court challenging the closure report of the CBI alleging that the agency was acting in an ‘‘arbitrary and biased’’ manner. Even as it had been issued notices to explain the status of the cases against Sharma.. Mr Agrarwal in his plea had said that five chapters from his report on the functioning of Doordarshan’s sports consortium were almost converted into five FIRs by the CBI and massive raids carried out. The CAG not only corroborated all the charges but showed hoe the losses incurred by Doordarshan in the telecast scandal were to the tun of Rs200 crores. And yet the CBI suddenly closed the investigations and gave Sarma, who headed the list of accused, a clean chit in at least two cases’’
6. One could also refer to a similar protest note sent by R K Anand, senior advocate and then Congress MP, to the Prime Minister on 3rd march 2003 demanding that all documents pertaining to Sarma’s selection and exoneration by the CBI and CVC be made public. Anand wrote: ‘‘The I&B Ministry has manipulated the entire system and has misled the Vice President who happens to be the Chairman of the Appointing Committee in recommending the name of K S Sarma as CEO of Prasar Bharti.’’
7. In case of Mr Thomas, the charge is that his involvement in the palmolein case caused a loss of Rs 28 crore to the Government of Kerala. But in case of Mr. K S Sarama, the CBI FIRs alleged that DD lost Rs 55 crore. Besides Sarma, who was then Doordarshan’s Director General, three Deputy Directors General and Doordarshan’s Sales Controller and two private TV companies were implicated in the CBI cases. In 2003, , the CAG filed an exhaustive report on the deals of the sports consortiums alleging financial impropriety and bungling on the part of the former Doordarshan bosses, including the DG. It was Mr Sarma who made Mr Thawani of Nimbus sports what he is today in giving him undue favour and bringing the revenue sharing ratio from 70-30 to 85-15 in favour of Nimbus for telecast of international one day cricket matches on the national channel.
Ms Sushma Swaraj may have passed on the charge of I&B Ministry to Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad at the fag end of the NDA regime but she would certainly have been aware of the blatant misuse of power by her appointee in the following years. In this context a 13 April 2003 report published in Indian express is an eye opener.
The report says “Nimubs, the firm which owns the marketing rights for the World Cup in India, offered Prasar Bharati CEO K.S. Sarma and five DD officials an all expenses paid trip to South Africa to watch the World Cup finals. Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ravi Shankar Prasad scuttled the proposal, noting on the file that it would be highly improper for Prasar Bharati employees to enjoy the hospitality of a private firm.
Since Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee had already issued orders that officials cannot go abroad without prior permission, Sarma should have cancelled his trip. But the CEO defiantly went ahead with his travel plans, claiming that Prasar Bharati was an autonomous body and dipping into the corporation’s internal revenue account to pay his bills. He left behind the other five scheduled to go with him.”
Not only that, when Mr Sharma incurred the wrath of Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s for his frequent visits abroad , he went to the extent of seeking clarification from the Law ministry on the extent of Prasar Bharti’s autonomy. He retired in June 2006 but by then he had done enough to break the back of Prasar Bharti in many ways.
As the leader of Opposition In Lok Sabha Ms Susma Swaraj would like to make the whole nation believe that that the UPA government had a vested interest in appointing Thomas as CVC. But then what was her vested interest in appointing a corrupt Sarma to the post of DG Prasar Bharati? She is equally as guilty and culpable in her role as the former I&B Minister in getting people like Mr K S Sarma appointed on equally high profile and sensitive post like the CEO of Prasar Bharti
सदस्यता लें
टिप्पणियाँ भेजें (Atom)
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें