As the controversy over the appointment of an Additional Director of CBI continues, it turns out that the CVC-recommended candidate, RK Pachnanda — who was overlooked by the PMO which preferred a senior officer instead — was denied clearance by the Intelligence Bureau for Central deputation.
While the CVC recommended Pachnanda a 1983-batch West Bengal cadre IPS officer for the post twice, the Centre preferred the appointment of IPS officer Archana Ramasundaram.
Interestingly, the CVC went ahead with clearing Pachnanda’s name despite “the IB red-flagging his candidature”. Even the CBI Director had opposed Pachnanda’s appointment. Furthermore, Pachnanda is even junior to Ramasundram, sources said.
Chief Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar claimed that the Committee “went by the CVC Act” even as government sources said the anti-corruption watchdog had recommended the name of a junior officer which was in violation of the seniority rules.
CVC was submitted a panel of three officers which included Ramasundaram, a 1980 batch IPS officer from Tamil Nadu, Ashok Kumar, a 1982 batch IPS officer from the same cadre and R K Pachnanda , who was shunted by Mamata Banerjee’s Government in February last year from the post of Commissioner of Kolkata Police. Pachnanda is presently Director of WB State Crime Records Bureau.
The Government rejected Pachnanda’s name as the officer was not being taken on central deputation since there were some reservations from Central security agencies. The Government asked for a different name from the CVC.
But the CVC again sent Pachnanda’s name without asking the CBI Director for a meeting, which sources said, is a violation of the existing norms. Following this, the Government summoned a list from the selection committee of the DoPT and selected Ramasundaram.
Before deciding on Ramasundaram’s appointment, the Government had sought Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran’s opinion on the issue. Parasaran had opined that the Government had “sufficient discretion to reject” if a single name is recommended.
He said that since the issue relates to the appointment of a high ranking officer in CBI the principles laid by Supreme Court in a judgment in 2011 would be applicable.
“Institutional integrity should be a primary consideration in making such an appointment keeping in mind not only the eligibility criteria but also the fact that the CBI has to perform an important investigative function,” he had said in his opinion.
In the event of only a single name being recommended by the selection committee, the Government has sufficient discretion to reject such a name for cogent, reasonable, bonafide and non-arbitrary reasons which should be able to stand judicial scrutiny, he had said.