SC quashes appointment of Thomas as CVC, Thomas resigns

New Delhi, Mar 3 (PTI) Dealing a big blow to United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, the Indian apex court
on Thursday quashed the appointment of P J Thomas as Central
Vigilance Commissioner, holding that the recommendation made
by the high-powered panel--headed by Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh--did not consider the relevant material and therefore
its advice "does not exist in law".
60-year-old Thomas, facing a corruption case in a
Kerala court relating to Palmolein import scam, resigned
immediately after the apex court gave its keenly awaited
verdict, just six months after the former bureaucrat was
appointed as the 14th CVC.
"He has resigned. The Supreme Court has also held his
appointment as illegal," Law Minister Veerappa Moily told
reporters.
A bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and
justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar said, "We
declare that the recommendation made by the high-powered
committee is non-est in law. Which means that the
recommendations made on September 3, 2010 does not exist
in law. Consequently, the appointment of Thomas goes."
In comments that came as an embarassment for the prime
minister, the bench severely criticised the committee for not
considering the relevant material including the pending
criminal case against Thomas in the Palmolein import case and
the recommendations of the DoPT between 2000-04 for initiating
disciplinary proceedings against him.
"It is the duty of the high-powered committee (HPC) to
not to recommend the name of a person who can affect the
institutional integrity of the CVC," the bench said, adding
the institutional integrity and the integrity of a person
holding the post of CVC is the touchstone of the office under
the CVC Act.
The court said the HPC failed to consider relevant
material against Thomas and the entire focus was on his
bio-data and none of the government bodies including the DoPT
focussed on larger issue of institutional integrity.


The apex court said that if the selection process
adversely affects the institution then it is the duty of the
authority not to recommend such persons and in the present
case, this vital aspect was not taken into account by the HPC.
The court rejected the contention of Thomas and the
government that the appointment of CVC cannot be brought under
judicial review and said the legality of the recommendation
can very much be reviewed by it.
The bench also rejected the government's contention
that vigilance clearance given by the CVC in 2008 was the
basis for empanelment of Thomas as a candidate for the post of
the CVC.
While observing that the touchstone for the
appointment of CVC is the institutional integrity as well as
the personal integrity of the candidate, the court said in
future, appointments should not be restricted to civil
servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other
fields should also be considered.
The bench said if there is a dissent note by any of
the three members of the high-power panel, it has to be given
with sufficient reasons and has to be considered by a
majority.
Further, the majority should also give reasons for
their decision as this will lead to a transparent process in
public interest and also inspire public confidence, it said.
While not considering the relevant material of the
DoPT, the bench said, "It is surprising that there were
notings by the DoPT between 2000 and 2004 and all observed
that penalty proceedings be instituted against Thomas. Such
notings were not considered in the case of Thomas, who was
given the CVC's clearance on September 6, 2008.
"No reference of such notings made between 2000 and
2004 is there. Therefore, on personal integrity, HPC did not
consider the relevant material.
"We are concerned with the institution and its
integrity but not with the individual," the bench said, adding
the impartiality of the institution has to be maintained which
is envisaged in the CVC Act.
The court scrapped Thomas' appointment as CVC on a PIL
by civil society, 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 in
a Kerala court.
Thomas was appointed CVC on September 7 last year.
Opposing the petitions seeking his removal, Thomas had
contended that he was appointed as the CVC after the vigilance
clearance given to him for his appointment as secretary in the
Union government and he needed no further vigilance clearance
before his appointment as the CVC