Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
It is known that the former CBI Director Alok Verma has been facing legal hurdles as the CVC had divested of his power to continue as CBI Director. Justice Patnaik was the monitor of the CVC probe into the matter of alleged corruption on the part of Alok Verma. The former judge said that none of his findings included in the CVC report, which was about 50 pages with annexures of 1000 pages, were his, and expressed his statement that no evidence against the CBI Director in respect of corruption. The enquiry had to continue because of the Rakesh Asthana’s Complaint.
On 10thJanuary 2019, as per section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the high-powered committee comprising the leader of the opposition—MalikarjunKharge, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Supreme Court Judge AK Sikri had to decide on the matter. Even though the leader of the opposition party disagreed to transfer Alok Verma, the other committee members decided to transfer him to the post of Director General of Fire Services, for his remaining term till January 31. Principles of Natural Justice were not followed as the hearing was not given to Alok Verma, nor did the committee state any reasons for its decision.
Justice Patnaik said the matter was of serious consideration as it involved institutional integrity, and the High-Powered Committee should have scrutinized the issue deeply and applied its mind. The report of the CVC cannot be final. Nevertheless, Alok Verma submitted a letter stating his unwillingness to function as the Director General of Fire Services. Further, he said that the complainant, Rakesh Asthana, never made his appearance before Justice Patnaik. Subsequently, Justice Patnaik said that he had found no evidence against Verma regarding the charges of corruption, and he had followed the principles of natural justice by giving a fair hearing to Alok Verma, thereby finishing the enquiry within fourteen days. Nevertheless, the findings provided in the report were not his.
Another legal hitch arises due to the decision of the high-powered committee. A question about how could he be transferred by the committee arises when he has already superannuated in July 2017. If it were not for his appointment as the CBI Director on January 2017, then he should have retired in July 2017 itself. He gets a fixed tenure of two years because of his post as the CBI Director by virtue of section 4B(1) of DSPE Act. It also implies that he cannot be transferred to any other post as the termination of his CBI Director post would culminate in falling out of service entirely.
The decision is apparently odd because of the high-powered committee failed to address this legal hitch. Therefore, in light of the legalities, no transfer could be made rather he could only be removed from the post of CBI Director. Even Verma said in his letter that he would have retired after July 2017 if it were not for the fixed tenure of two years as the CBI Director. Further, he said he is beyond the superannuation age for DG fire services, and he could not continue as DG of Fire Services.
The Supreme Court quashed the CVC order of his transfer reasoning that prior consent of the high-powered committee is mandatory in this regard, and restrained Alok Verma from taking any policy decisions. The Court concluded that the high-powered committee could decide on this matter with regard to his suitability to continue as the CBI Director.
86540
103860
630
114
59824