‘Person facing a charge-sheet cannot even be considered for promotion'

Under the service jurisprudence, a person against whom a charge-sheet is pending cannot even be considered for promotion, the Supreme Court observed on Monday.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice (CJI) S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar was hearing a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Law and others challenging the appointment of P.J. Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner.



When Attorney-General (AG) G.E. Vahanvati submitted that there was no case against Mr. Thomas and that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had gone through the files, Justice Swatanter Kumar told the AG: “Consider this. He [Mr. Thomas] is the head of the CVC. The Palmolein case is handled by the State [Kerala]. What further investigation [in the charge-sheet pending from 2000] can be done by the State when the top brass at the Centre is heading the CVC? Under the service jurisprudence, you do not promote a person against whom a charge-sheet is pending.”

Justice Radhakrishnan told the AG: “We are not against the person. We are against the post. At this stage, a charge-sheet is pending against him.” The AG said the former Chief Election Commissioner, J. M. Lyngdoh, one of the petitioners, had stated that Mr. Thomas' integrity was beyond doubt, but was now challenging his credentials.

The CJI told the AG: “We are only wondering whether he will be able to function as CVC. He himself will be embarrassed. You take instructions. Since this matter is very important, we will structure our order on that basis. In the meanwhile, we will sit together and go through the file.”

Counsel Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Committee on Public Undertaking in Kerala had severely indicted Mr. Thomas. When the AG objected to such a submission being made without an affidavit, the CJI asked Mr. Bhushan to file the report in the form of an affidavit.

The petitioner questioned the appointment of Mr. Thomas, saying that it was made in violation of Section 4 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, and the Supreme Court judgment in the Vineet Narain case.

The petition alleged that in the palmolein import case, which dates back to the 1990s when Mr. Thomas was Kerala Food Secretary, a charge-sheet was filed, and when that criminal case was still pending, he ought not to have been considered for selection at all.

The petition quoted the Vineet Narain case, which had clearly said that only an outstanding civil servant with impeccable integrity should be appointed Central Vigilance Commissioner, and a person against whom a charge-sheet was pending would not meet that criterion.

The petition said the Central Vigilance Commissioner's main function was to exercise superintendence and monitor the anti-corruption work and investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The most important investigation now being carried out by the CBI was the 2G spectrum allocation, which cost the exchequer Rs. 70,000 crore. “Respondent no. 2 [Mr. Thomas], having served till recently as Telecom Secretary and having been [allegedly] involved in the cover-up of the said scam, is clearly barred [from holding the office of CVC] on account of his conflict of interest.”

The Bench adjourned the hearing by two weeks.