Thomas defends his selection in SC

Thomas, whose appointment as CVC was challenged in the court due to a chargesheet pending against him in the Palmolein import case in Kerala, also pointed out that there was no sanction to allow his prosecution by the state government.

In a 12-page affidavit filed in the court, he claimed that he was a man of “impeccable integrity” qualified for the post under the Central Vigilance Commission Act.

“It is very unfortunate that politics has rendered me an unfortunate victim, when admittedly my integrity is not in doubt. Several authorities across the political and the executive spectrum have exonerated me and my only fault probably is that I have not approached the media to carry my side of the story,” Thomas said.

“The consequence is that I have been held out to the public as a ‘tainted’ official. This is rather tragic as my record during 37 years of service has been without blemish,” he added.

Objective viewpoint

Thomas also submitted that an objective view should be taken of the pending case against him as it was routine for officers to face charges which crop up as part and parcel of their discharge of the duties.

“An impression has been created that my case is a unique one and that I alone suffer some taint against my name. Clearly, it is routine for the officers in discharge of their duties to have cases slapped against them, many of which are trumped-up or politically motivated,” he said in the affidavit.

He said that there were nine officers in the zone of consideration of the post and his name was cleared after following due procedure as every other officer had a pending case or complaint.

“I also must state that the inquiry about the documents being placed before the three-member committee may not be relevant in the light of the fact that all the names on the shortlist were of secretaries to the government, who, by virtue of their process of selection as secretaries, are deemed to be of impeccable integrity,” he said.

He said, “It is assumed that by virtue of being secretaries to the Union government where they would have held very sensitive information in ministries like Home, External Affairs, Finance and Law & Justice, they would be fit to handle responsibilities as chairmen of tribunals.”

The appointment of Thomas as CVC had stirred up a controversy with leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj striking a note of disagreement in a panel headed by Prime Minister.

With regard to appointment as the secretary in DoT and the controversy related to the 2G spectrum licence, Thomas said the allocation had already taken place in January 2008, 20 months prior to his appointment to the post of CVC on October 1, 2009.

 He also referred to a statement issued by the association of the Kerala IAS officers, regarding him as a man of “impeccable integrity.”

NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and some eminent persons including former chief election commissioner J M Lyngdoh had challenged Thomas’ appointment as the head of the anti-corruption watchdog contending that he cannot be considered as a person of “impeccable integrity” due to a charge sheet against him in the Palmolein import scam for his role as a secretary in the Kerala Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies.