As many as 150 more cases of coal scam investigation where CBI decided on filing closure report are up for scrutiny by the CVC.
The Bench of Chief Justice RM lodha, Justices Madan B lokur and Kurian Joseph, monitoring the coal scam probe, said, “Having regard to CBI’s readiness we direct that files relating to all PEs shall be submitted for scrutiny by the two Vigilance Commissioners. The VCs shall submit their report to this court within six weeks of receipt of files from CBI.”
In a communication to court, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha said, “In order to put to rest any further misgivings about the fairness of the enquiries completed so far it is unequivocally submitted that CBI is ready to submit files relating to all the PEs completed so far to the scrutiny of CVC.”
In the meantime, the Bench asked the agency not to file any fresh closure reports in the coal scam before the special CBI court. The case will next be heard on July 8 by when the CBI and Enforcement Directorate were asked to submit fresh status reports.
Sources in the CBI indicated that till date, in about 150 coal scam cases, the CBI top brass recommended closure report to be filed in the trial court. Earlier, the CBI submitted 25 files to the CVC after SC on March 28 sought CVC opinion due to difference of opinion between the I.O and superior officers on filing of closure report. In three cases, CVC had recommended filing of charge sheet overturning CBI’s decision to close the case.
“Difference of opinion is in fact the strength of CBI and highlights the internal transparency in decision making which needs to be encouraged and nurtured in the interest of fair and professional investigation,” said Sinha’s note read out by CBI special counsel Amarendra Sharan. “It is humbly requested that this court shield the institution from baseless disrepute and mischievous falsehoods,” Director added.
Sinha said that he was aware of the insinuation of “conflict of interest” against CBI Joint Director OP Galhotra supervising the coal scam probe. Responding to charge laid by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the PIl petitioners, Sinha denied Galhotra having “relationship” with Jindal group. But in the light of the accusation, Galhotra had voluntarily withdrawn from all coal cases and his decision had been accepted, the note said.
The court noted in its order that recusal of Galhotra will not be treated as an “adverse comment” on his personal and professional integrity in any manner. In his place, the DIGs probing the coal cases will report to Additional Director RK Dutta.
Galhotra’s letter written to CBI Director was also read to the court which stated, “I do not know (Congress MP) Naveen Jindal at all, either personally or socially. I have never spoken with him nor met him ever.” On his recusal from the case against Jindals, he revealed that one Gyan Swaroop Garghad owned several companies, one of which had some transactions with a company called M/s Korba Coal Company. “This Korba Coal Company came to be taken over, post the said transaction, by one of my relatives. The connection evidently was distant and remote,” Galhotra said, adding, “My recusal from the case was not out of any conflict of interest or any kind of association I had with Naveen Jindal but was in best interest of propriety.”
Batting for Galhotra, CBI Director informed court that it was on his source information PE was registered on the aspect of “quid pro quo” between Jindal group and then Coal Minister Dasari Narayan Rao. On enquiry, Galhotra recommended regular case (R.C) against the accused persons including Naveen Jindal as named accused. “The Regular Case was registered in June 2013 which he supervised till December 2013,” the affidavit said.
CBI counsel Sharan objected to irresponsible personal allegations levelled by Bhushan in court accusing Sharan of trying to influence outcome of cases. The Bench warned petitioners - both Bhushan and advocate Ml Sharma, “Nobody should wash their dirty linen in court…Every word spoken by you is meant for case and not gallery.”