Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is averred in the petition that the absolute requirement is that Central Vigilance Officer should have unblemished record of service. The appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, respondent No.2 as CVC has been assailed on the basis of facts mentioned in the complaint. Prior to that, he was the Chairperson of CBDT and Advisor to the SIT on black   money.   Before   his   appointment,   several   representations   were made to the Prime Minister of India, who heads the selection panel as provided in section 4 of the Act. As it transpired that the Government had made up its mind to appoint respondent No.2, representations were made giving specific reasons as to why he was not eligible and suitable   for   heading   the   Commission.   Despite   representations,   his appointment had been made.   Firstly, it is submitted that Mr. K.V. Chowdary had been  meeting with the then CBI Director Mr. Ranjit Sinha   and   had   been   regularly   meeting   the   accused   in   the   cases investigated   by   the   CBI   in   the   2G   scam   cases.   This   Court   had directed   on   20.11.2015   in   Civil   Appeal   No.10660   of   2010,   the   CBI Director not to interfere in the investigation process carried out by the CBI in the 2G scam case and to recuse himself from 2G scam case. This   Court   had   also   observed   in   the   judgment   dated   14.5.2015   in Writ Petition [C] No.463 of 2012 that Mr. Ranjit Sinha’s meetings with accused in coal scam were completely inappropriate, and his role in allegedly   scuttling   investigations   in   coal   scam   case   needs   to   be investigated.

41. This   Court   has   never   expressed   dissatisfaction   or   inadequacy regarding the functioning.

42. With   respect   to   the   allegation   regarding   Radia   Tapes   when answering   respondent   No.2   had   joined   as   DGIT   (Investigations)   on 1.11.2010,   the   surveillance   of   Ms.   Nira   Radia   was   over.   Actionable issues were identified and necessary action was taken either by the Delhi   Directorate   or   was   communicated   to   other   Directorates   for further action. The information was duly shared with the assessing officers, and other law enforcement authorities such as CBI, ED etc. The   matter   was   before   this   Court.   The   representations   were submitted   from   time   to   time.   None   of   the   authorities   found   any shortcomings   or   inaction   on   his   part   on   this   count.   No   such allegation   was   made   before   this   Court   against   him   by   the   counsel appearing in 2G scam case. 

Respondent No.2 met Mr. Ranjit Sinha the then Director, CBI who was directed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2015 in C.A. No.1060   of   2010.   This   Court   had   directed   Mr.   Ranjit   Sinha   not   to interfere in investigation prosecutions carried out by CBI in 2G scam case and to recuse himself from 2G scam case. This Court had also observed against Mr. Sinha that the meetings with accused in coal scam   were   inappropriate.   These   allegations   are   against   Mr.   Ranjit Sinha. However, what is submitted against respondent No.2 is that respondent   No.2   had   met   Mr.   Ranjit   Sinha,   CBI   Director   on 29.12.2013 and 20.4.2014 for 15 minutes on earlier occasions and 8 minutes on a later date. When the meetings were held, respondent No.2 was probing the interception dealings of Hawala dealer Mr. Moin Qureshi.   Mr.   Ranjit   Sinha,   Director,   CBI,   was   investigating   Stock Guru scam where senior income tax officers were involved in which Mr.   Sinha   was   investigating   the   role   of   respondent   No.2.   Certain senior income tax officers had taken a bribe to favour two scamsters of   Stock   Guru   and   had   misappropriated   about   Rs.40   crores.   Said officers   were   working   under   respondent   No.2.   Thus,   it   was   not appropriate for respondent No.2 to meet Mr. Ranjit Sinha. Income tax department gave a clean chit to Mr. Ranjit Sinha in respect of Mr. Moin Qureshi and CBI gave a clean chit to respondent No.2. Thus, respondent No.2 and Mr. Ranjit Sinha helped each other.

POINT NO. (IV)

91. With   respect   to   Radia   tapes,   the   Department   of   Revenue, Ministry   of   Finance   opined   that   the   opinion   of   the   authorities   has found   no   fault   with   Mr.   Chowdary.   Allegations   against   him   were factually incorrect and  baseless. IB has opined that the  allegations could not be established in the course of the discreet inquiry. The CBI also found nothing adverse against Mr. Chowdary in 2G scam cases or  Radia  tapes   consequent  upon   the   order  dated   21.2.2013   of   this Court.