PJ Thomas: Defending the indefensible

| Last updated less than one minute ago

Submit :

News Photos Just In Debate Topic Latest News Articles Local News Blog Posts Pictures Reviews Recipes

Chitranjan Sawant

01 February, 2011

PJ Thomas has raised two points in self defence and both are of technical nature and not of substantive nature to affect the outcome of the main case. Indeed, much would depend on the view likely to be taken by the two learned judges.

PJ THOMAS, the Central Vigilance Commissioner may put forward plea after plea to convince the Supreme Court that his service record portrays him as the man of an impeccable honesty and integrity but their Lordships have been asking question after question and the trend shows that they are not convinced that he is the most suitable and senior most bureaucrat to be appointed to the high post.

Nevertheless, their lordships have given PJ Thomas every opportunity to defend himself in a the Apex Court. The latest pleas of the CVC are that the sanction of the government had not been obtained for prosecuting him for causing a unlawful loss to the government and unlawful gain to himself. One wonders whether PJ Thomas had raised this point of law earlier before the court hearing his case and, if so, what was the outcome. Another relevant point would be- whether this plea of not obtaining government sanction to prosecute him is not time barred and, if so, what would its impact be on the case if it were to be decided on merit.

PJ Thomas has raised two points in self defence and both are of technical nature and not of substantive nature to affect the outcome of the main case. Indeed, much would depend on the view likely to be taken by the two learned judges and how the counsel for the petitioner is able to argue his case.

The counsel for the petitioner may say that the substantive point is : PJ Thomas made illegal money in the case of purchase of palm oil for the government of Kerala when he was the Food Secretary and in that capacity paid a price higher than the prevailing market price. Thus in the transaction, PJ Thomas caused a wrongful gain to the sellers and a wrongful loss to the government of Kerala whose employee he was and had negotiated and finalised the deal. Thus he had acted dishonestly and had swindled his own employer for causing wrongful gain to himself and sellers of palm oil, a third party. I

n view of the facts of the case that stand undisputed, PJ Thomas cannot be relied upon and his honesty and integrity have not only been questioned but also been damaged beyond repairs. Therefore, a man of his nature who can cheat his own employer, is certainly not fit to be employed as the Central Vigilance Commissioner to oversee and protect the financial interests of government of India.

Here is a senior IAS officer, PJ Thomas, who is required to be honest and above board always and every time and yet he has ditched the government of Kerala, his own employer.

The government of Kerala has gone ahead with the prosecution of PJ Thomas and another colleague of his, irrespective of the fact whether the technicality of obtaining a chit of paper containing the sanction for prosecution was fulfilled or not. In all probability, it was done because it is the same government of Kerala that had proceeded with the prosecution case of the same officer.

In any case, it is a question that can be ascertained from the record of the government of Kerala. Since the case of corruption against PJ Thomas is still going on and has not yet been decided on merit, the requisite government sanction for his prosecution may be obtained and submitted to the court of law now. The submission of sanction or its absence will not affect the outcome of the legal case accusing PJ Thomas of financial dishonesty substantially. PJ Thomas, if found guilty of this moral turpitude, cannot hide behind a minor technical point.

PJ Thomas has also contended before the Apex Court that he was the senior most officer at the point of appointment as CVC. An important point is that his seniority was vitiated by his acts and omissions of financial dishonesty that wipe out the advantage of his seniority of service. An appointee to the highest post of guarding the conscience of staff should be above board himself.
Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.