Attorney general GE Vahanvati said once a bureaucrat is given the vigilance nod, no further inquiry would be required, though he acknowledged a grey area in the procedure.
The government today told the Supreme Court that once a bureaucrat is given a vigilance nod for appointment as secretary, no further clearance is required for empanelment for appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati submitted the opinion to the bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia, saying no further inquiry was required for such individuals.
"Impeccable integrity is an important requirement [for secretarial candidates]," Vahanvati said.
But when asked about the potential stigma of a chargesheet. Vahanvati acknowledge it was a 'grey area.'
The law officer contended that filing of the chargesheet is not a stigma when the bench posed a question.
During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest litigation, which has moved the court challenging appointment of PJ Thomas as CVC, said various factors about the Palmolein import case were not before the CVC when it gave vigilance clearance to Thomas.
The CVC had not taken into account the chargesheet pending against him, Bhushan claimed, adding the issue of sanction for his prosecution by the state government was not brought before the anti-corruption watchdog.
The case diary was also not brought before the CVC, he said, contending that the report of the committee of public undertaking in Kerala was also not presented before it.
"The CVC gave clearance to Thomas only on the basis of the note placed before it by the Department of Personnel and Training," he said.
"The CVC cannot be the final authority," the bench said, stressing that the appointment has to be in accordance with the Vineet Narain judgement which makes it clear that the CVC has to remain independent, impartial, free and fair and uninfluenced by political executives.
Vahanvati said the criterion of an outstanding person with impeccable integrity has to be taken undoubtedly into the consideration for appointment as CVC.
The bench, however, said, that in the given case, the issue of charge sheet and sanction for prosecution of Thomas were not considered by the Personnel and Training ministry and others.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}