The CVC’s report, presented to the court on Friday, noted “serious irregularities in probes into a few sensitive cases”, leading the SC to declare that “some of these charges require investigation”.
The vigilance body had been asked to probe the veracity of the allegations levelled by Verma’s estranged colleague, special director Rakesh Asthana, that the CBI chief had interfered with probes into sensitive cases.
The two-year tenure of Verma, who, along with Asthana, was sent on leave, runs out in January and the SC suggesting further investigation considerably diminishes the prospect of his return from the “forced exile”.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph sought Verma’s response to the damning portions of the CVC inquiry report by 1pm on Monday. Fixing November 20 for further hearing, the bench said it would take a decision after perusing his response.
Giving an outline of the report, supervised by ex-SC judge A K Patnaik, into charges levelled against Verma by Asthana on August 24, the bench said, “It is an exhaustive report backed by documents. It can be categorised into four parts — complimentary, very complimentary, not so complimentary and very uncomplimentary (towards Verma).”
The “complimentary and very complimentary” part of the report pertained to the “nothing substantial” finding on the allegation that Rs 2 crore bribe was allegedly paid to Verma by Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana in cases relating to meat trader Moin Qureshi. This was reported by TOI on November 12. The CVC indicated that while evidence in this case was at a nascent stage, it could be probed further.
Verma and Asthana were both sent of leave on October 23 after their feuding spilled into the public domain with the two senior CBI officers levelling serious charges of corruption against one another.
“Some of the charges will require further investigation,” the bench said and ordered a copy of the report to be given in sealed cover to senior advocate Fali S Nariman, who appeared for Verma, and asked for a response, also in sealed cover, to the “not so complimentary and very uncomplimentary” portions of the report.
The report was finalised after the inquiry conducted by CVC K V Chowdary and vigilance commissioners Sharad Kumar and T M Bhasin. Justice Patnaik gave a separate sealed cover note to the SC on the inquiry process.
The bench agreed for expeditious hearing as Nariman said only that could stop rumours and speculation flooding public space. Justifying the sealed-cover process for giving the report and getting Verma’s response, the SC said, “This course of action has been considered necessary by the court keeping in mind the need to preserve and maintain the sanctity of the institution of CBI and public confidence in the said institution.”
“We also make it clear that the present order requiring furnishing the report of the CVC in sealed cover to the counsel for the petitioner is being made in the peculiar facts of the case and as a one-time measure.” CJI Gogoi added, “Once we have your (Verma’s) response, we will take a decision.”
The SC agreed to give a copy of the CVC report to attorney general K K Venugopal and solicitor general Tushar Mehta and asked them to “treat it with utmost confidentiality”. However, it refused to give a copy to Asthana.
The bench also refused the AG’s request that the Centre be permitted to file a response as it had ordered the CVC inquiry against Verma after sending him and Asthana on leave. The bench said, “At this stage, we are not inclined to call upon either the Union of India or any other party to submit any response/reply to the CVC report (except Verma).”
The SC took up the case on October 26 after Verma challenged the Centre’s decision to send him on leave despite a statutory provision entitling him to a fixed two-year tenure till January 2019. He had said this could not be done without prior permission from the selection committee comprising the PM, the CJI and the leader of the largest opposition party. Senior Congressman Mallikarjun Kharge, too, had moved an application seeking to be a party in Verma’s petition and made a similar prayer.
The first hearing on Verma’s petition was on October 26, when the SC had ordered that the CVC probe would be supervised by Justice Patnaik. It had restrained acting CBI director Nageswar Rao from taking any policy decisions and had asked for a report on the preliminary inquiry from CVC by November 12.
It began on August 24 when Asthana shot off a letter to the cabinet secretary detailing various charges against Verma, including the Rs 2-crore bribe allegation. The cabinet secretary forwarded the complaint to the CVC, which did not get the necessary documents from the CBI despite repeated requests until the SC order of October 26.
In what appeared as a counter to Asthana, the CBI on October 15 moved speedily and registered an FIR against Asthana on Sana’s statement that over Rs 3 crore was extorted from him in the name of the special director in the same Qureshi case. On October 20, Sana’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded before a magistrate.
from Times of India https://ift.tt/2BcKP04
