CVC COMES TO THE RESCUE OF CVC

By Arjun Raghunath
The New Indian Express

T'Puram, Sept 12

While it has come to light that the Centre has given clean chit to
Kerala-cadre IAS officer P.J.Thomas in the Palmoline case on the basis
of an observation of the Central Vigilance Commission, it is pointed
out that the CVC's observation will not legally exonerate the IAS
officer from the case pending against him at the Vigilance Special
Court in Thiruvananthapuram.

Sources in the Vigilance Department said that the CVC's observation
would deny Centre's sanction to prosecute the IAS officer under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. But the State Government had already
granted sanction to prosecute the officer under Indian Penal Code.

Moreover the observation of the CVC would have no binding on a case
that was already chargesheeted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau at the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge
(Vigilance) here in 2003.

Express had reported the other day that the Centre's claim that
P.J.Thomas, who has been appointed as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner
of the nation, was exonerated in the Palmoline case was not true as he
is still an accused in the case as per the records available with the
VACB and the court.

According to the reply given by the Department of Personnel and
Training to a query under the Right to Information Act on the status
of the Vigilance case against Thomas as well as his IAS colleague Jiji
Thomson, who is also an accused in the case, the CVC had observed that
no case is made against them and that the two officers acted in
accordance with the Cabinet decision and no loss had been caused to
the state government. Most importantly, no case is made out that they
had derived any benefit from the transaction, the CVC observed.

The CVC had also observed that the case may not be held against the
two officers for the purpose of their empanelment at the centre for
higher posts and per their eligibility, says the reply to the RTI
application given about two years back by the wife of former Chief
Secretaray S.Padmakumar who is also an accused in the Palmoline case.


Sources said that the CVC's observation came after P.J.Thomas and Jiji
Thomson made an appeal a couple of years back in connection with the
mandatory clearance required for their promotion.

Legal experts also point out that since the Palmoline case is already
chargesheeted at a court, any person arraigned in the chargesheet
could be exonerated only with the concurrance of the court. “CVC could
only make an observation, but is not a legal authority to exonerate a
person accused in a case, “ said senior lawyer and former Vigilance
Tribunal Cherinyoor P.Sashidharan Nair.

ends.




CVC is on bail


By Arjun Raghunath

T'Puram, Sept. 13 (2010)

It might be a rare honour for the nation. The officer who is holding
the highest position in the nations Vigilance machianery is indeed on
bail in a Vigilance case !

P.J.Thomas, the Kerala-cadre IAS officer who has been appointed as
Chief Vigilance Commissioner amidst controversies, is on bail from the
court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) in
Thiruvananthapuram in the sensational Palmoline case.

According to the information available with Express, Thomas, who was a
former Civil Supplies secretary, appeared before the court on Apirl
2, 2003 as per a summons issued by the court in connection with the
Palmoline case and was granted bail. Former Chief Secretary
Padmakumar and former Additional Chief Secretaray Zachariah Mathew
also appeared before the court on the same day and were granted bail.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) which probed into the
Palmoline case had filed the chargesheet against the eight persons
including Thomas in November 1999. On March 12, 2003 the court issued
summons to all the eight accused. The others accused, including former
Chief Minister K.Karunakaran, Civil Supplies Minister T.H.Mustaffa and
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Managing Director Jiji
Thomson, appeared before the court on April 9 and were granted bail.

Meanwhile, contradictory to the observation of the Central Vigilance
Commission justifying the involvement of P.J.Thomas and Jiji Thomson
in the case, it has also come to light that the Supreme Court had
observed that the case against the accused could not be considered as
a “result of malafides or actuated by extraneous considerations.”
While dismissing a petition filed by Karunakaran seeking quashing of
the FIR in the case in March 29, 2000 the Supreme Court observed that
“the menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the
carpet of legal technicalities.”

It is also pointed out that the VACB had filed the chargesheet in the
case as per a direction of the Supreme Court. The High Court had also
observed that prima facie there was corruption in deal and the
Comptroller and Auditor General had detected irregularities in the
deal.

“The question is not over the involvement of P.J.Thomas in the
corruption, but over the ethics in appointing a person who is still an
accused in a Vigilance case to the top most post of CVC. Thomas should
have been appointed to such a post only after he is exhonerated by the
court,” said a senior counsel.

Ends.