The plea has been filed by Mumbai-based ex-IRS officer Uday Babu Khalwadekar. He alleged that alleged that Karnal Singh has been given 'ad-hoc extensions from August 2015 till November 2016' in complete contravention of Section 25 (d) of the Central Vigilance Act.
PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking quashing of ad-hoc appointment and subsequent extensions granted by the Centre to Karnal Singh as head of premier investigation agency, Enforcement Directorate, in "violation" of the law.
The plea, filed by Mumbai-based former IRS officer Uday Babu Khalwadekar which is likely to be listed for hearing next week, alleged that Singh has been given "ad-hoc extensions from August 2015 till November 2016" in complete contravention of Section 25 (d) of the Central Vigilance Act.
"A Director of Enforcement shall continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office," reads section 25 (d) of the CVC Act.
The plea alleged that Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Department of Personnel and Training and the Commissioner of Central Vigilance Commission have given a "complete go by" to the CVC Act.
Khalwadekar, in his PIL, referred to other provisions of the CVC Act which provides that the Centre shall appoint ED Director on the recommendations of the Committee consisting of the CVC as Chairperson and Vigilance Commissioners as members.
The law provides the panel will also consist secretaries of MHA, DoPT, Department of Revenue as members.
"The purpose of providing for a fixed and secured tenure (under law) is to ensure independence in the functioning of the Director...
"Secure, fixed tenure provides an impetus for the person at the helm to take actions boldly and fearlessly without hoping for reward or a fear of punishment from the government," it said
The appointing authority has "completely flouted the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the CVC Act and has made ad-hoc appointment/extensions from January 2015 to avoid appointing a full-time director so that the ad-hoc appointee is at the beck and call of the government of the day," the PIL said.
Referring to the appointment made to the post during UPA-II, the plea said Rajan Katoch was the last full-time Director appointed in March 2012 and he held office for a term of 3 years till January 30, 2015 and was later given a three-months extension till April 30.
Katoch was given ad-hoc extensions till October 31, 2015, it said, adding that on August 19, the ED Director was replaced by another ad-hoc appointee Karnal Singh who is still continuing as a result of several extensions.
"A reading of the...sequence of events would show that India's premier Enforcement Agency is running without a full-time Director appointed on an ad-hoc basis.
"It is submitted that since January 30, 2015 (i.e for more than one-and-a-half years), the Enforcement Directorate has been functioning without a full-time Director appointed under Section 25 of the CVC Act," it alleged.
"The entire process of ad-hoc additional charge being given of this sensitive post of the Enforcement Directorate goes against the very grain of Section 25 of the Act. The Enforcement Directorate is a key organisation dealing with the enforcement of the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act...," it said.
The ad-hoc extensions and the act of not appointing a permanent Director in ED with a secure minimum tenure is severely compromising functioning of the entire agency itself, it said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "supreme-court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}