[HumJanenge] Re: THOMAS WAS APPOINTED AS CVC DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF VIGILANCE CASE

Sir,

The Kerala State first opposed Thomas's Central deputation but then
withdrew their objection. When this came to light Kerala tried to
restore their complaint but DoPT refused to do so.

Sarbajit

On Jun 18, 11:26 am, Sant Mathur <santmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the result of RTI response to non-acceptance of Kerala State for
> central deputation? Who's being sacked and punished?
> spm
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Mukund Apte <mda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >       Dear Sir,
> >       Shri P J Thomas was appointed by the Selection Committee (consisting
> > of PM, HM & Leader of Opp.) by majority vote 2 against 1. Since we take all
> > decisions in Democracy by majority votes, nothing else could be OK, isn't
> > it? With Government's representatives (always) in majority in any such
> > committees, the result always will follow what Government proposes. Why
> > should then there be the inclusion of opposition members in such committees
> > at all?
> >       For effective use of such committees, the rule must be to select THAT
> > person from the panel (in front of the committee) who has least opposition
> > from ALL the members in the committee. In short selection must be unanimous.
> > Otherwise the committee formation has no value at all, don't you agree sir?
> >       With regards to all,
> >       ------Mukund Apte
>
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in>wrote:
>
> >>   PJ Thomas was not cleared to serve on central deputation'
> >> Economic Times, 13.6.2011.
>
> >>     NEW DELHI: After denying any communique from the Kerala government on
> >> the pending vigilance case against former CVC P J Thomas , the Centre has
> >> now made public a letter from the state which says he was not cleared to
> >> serve on central deputation.
>
> >> The Central Public Information Officer of the Department of Personnel and
> >> Training in an RTI response had earlier said no such letter was with them.
> >> But during the first appeal, Deputy Secretary R K Mittal overturned the
> >> previous reply.
>
> >> "After going through the relevant papers and official records, it appears
> >> that the CPIO was not able to link up the letter with the file concerned.
> >> Accordingly, CPIO is directed to refer to file...and provide the relevant
> >> information," Mittal said in his order.
>
> >> After the decision, the letter dated March 11, 2008 from the chief
> >> secretary of Kerala objecting to Thomas' deputation to the Centre was
> >> provided to activist S C Agrawal.
>
> >> The communique has punctured the claims of DoPT that it was unaware about
> >> the ongoing vigilance case against Thomas while short-listing his name for
> >> the post of anti-corruption watchdog Central Vigilance Commissioner.
>
> >> "P J Thomas, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government (Kerala), had applied for
> >> Central Deputation in 1988, but was not selected for appointment.
> >> Subsequently after 1992, he had expressed his willingness for central
> >> deputation, but was not considered because of ongoing vigilance
> >> enquiry/case. Because of this he was not considered so far.
>
> >> "The case has not been finalised yet. I may inform tha Thomas could not
> >> work at the Centre as he was not recommended for the same by the state
> >> government ," the letter from the chief secretary said.
>
> >> 60-year-old Thomas, a 1973-batch IAS officer of the Kerala cadre, was
> >> appointed chief secretary of the state in 2007 before moving to the Centre
> >> in 2009 as secretary, parliamentary affairs, telecom secretary and finally
> >> central vigilance commissioner.
>
> >> The government had appointed Thomas as CVC despite dissension by Leader of
> >> Opposition Sushma Swaraj, who was one of the three-members in the selection
> >> committee comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P
> >> Chidambaram.
>
> >> The apex court had later quashed the appointment of Thomas as CVC holding
> >> that the recommendation made by the panel, headed by the Prime Minister, did
> >> not consider the relevant material and, therefore, its advice "does not
> >> exist in law".
>
> >> The court had scrapped his appointment as CVC on a PIL by Center for
> >> Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and retired bureaucrats and police
> >> officials, including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh ,
> >> challenging his appointment in view of a criminal case pending against him.
>
> >> Later, the prime minister had said he was unaware of the pending case
> >> against Thomas and virtually blamed Chavan, who was MoS (Personnel) at that
> >> time, for the fiasco, contending that the key information was not provided.
>
> >> Reacting to it, Chavan said vigilance clearance was the responsibility of
> >> the state government. He had also said the central deputation of Thomas was
> >> on the basis of documents provided by the Kerala government.
>
> >> This argument was termed "baseless" by the then Chief Minister of Kerala V
> >> S Achuthanandan who said the Centre was duly informed about pending
> >> vigilance case against Thomas in 2008.
>
>