CVC P.J. Thomas has apparently thrown the ball in the Centre’s court by refusing to put in his papers before the government “officially’’ gives him a clean chit in the decade-old Palmolein import case pending against him in Kerala.
Government sources disclosed that the CVC may be given a “smooth exit’’ after the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) denies sanction for prosecution against him. The move is being looked at even as sources in the DoPT maintain that due diligence had been maintained in his appointment. The CVC had twice cleared his name, in 2004 and 2007, for promotion and continuation in service, they added. In both instances, the anti-corruption watchdog had maintained that there was no merit in the case against him.
But the “technical’’ aspect of denying sanction was apparently overlooked by the department during the NDA and UPA regimes, the sources said. As a result, Mr Thomas’ name continued to figure in the chargesheet relating to import of Palmolein when he was serving in Kerala as food and civil supplies secretary. Though the government is aware that any move now to give a clean chit to Mr Thomas may generate a political storm, the sources said that it was Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj who had observed that though the “taint’’ may have gone, the “stain’’ remains in Mr Thomas’ case and rejected his name during the selection of the CVC. “There is no case against Thomas. We could have done this earlier before including his name in the panel for CVC,” a source said.
Mr Thomas’ resignation was being seen as the only way out for the government ahead of the Monday’s hearing in the Supreme Court challenging his appointment. But sources said that Mr Thomas stuck to his guns and refused to resign fearing that once he tenders his resignation he would lose all “immunity’’ he enjoys as a government official and his case would be open for trial.
Meanwhile, minister of state for department of personnel V. Narayanasamy told reporters on Monday that the government will file all the details in the Supreme Court in response to its notice.