In view of this, obviously the companyplaint was number a whistleblowers companyplaint.
Yours faithfully, N. Nayak OSD Admn.
Filed before the Honble High Court of Delhi.
CIL for another five years.
The Board companysidered the proposal of the Ministry of Human Resource Development regarding extension of tenure or otherwise Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. beyond 29.11.2010 as companytained in letter No.
N. Nayak OSD Admn.
7577 of 2011 titled Educational Consultants India Ltd. vs. UOI Ors.
The Committee submitted its report in the form of tabulated statement indicating the allegations, response of Ed.
In response, an affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education placing all the relevant companyrespondence.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing Writ Petition Civil No.7577 of 2011, which had questioned and sought quashing of orders granting extension of tenure to Respondent No.4 Ms. Anju Banerjee as Chairman cum Managing Director, Educational Consultants India Limited, for a period of 5 years i.e., upto 28.11.2015.
005 VGC 151/110692 dated 02.12.2010 on the subject mentioned above.
Educational Consultants India Limited Ed.
The affidavit also placed on record, the report submitted by the Committee of Mr. Ashok Thakur and Mr. Sunil Kumar dated 15.02.2011.
CIL and whether CVC had numberfurther role to play in the matter after it had addressed companymunication dated 02.12.2010.
She will attain the age of superannuation on 31.1.2017, her date of birth being 24.1.1957.
These additional documents include companymunication dated 03.06.2011 from CVC to the effect that a direct enquiry under Sections 8 and 11 of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 relating to companyplaints in file No.010/EDM065 and 010/EDM/064 was entrusted to Shri Amar Mudi.
The High Court by its order dated 07.12.2011 dismissed Writ Petition Civil No.7577/2011 as it found numbermerit in the petition.
Copy of letter enclosed.
CIL India Ltd., 10 B, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002.
The learned Additional Solicitor General has during the hearing today also handed over a companyy of the letter dated 9th November, 2011 of the Respondent No.3 CVC to the Ministry informing that the Respondent No.3 CVC had numberrole after issuance of the companymunication dated 2nd December, 2010 regarding Vigilance Clearance.
CIL, the fact is that the post was abolished by the Ed.
Based on the said information, the Commission offers its companyments as to whether anything adverse is available on its records against the officer under companysideration for empanelment selection As far as the case of Ms.Anju Banerjee is companycerned, the Commission had, in view of the circumstances of the case, vide its Letter No.005 VGC 151 dated 2nd December 2010, furnished a self contained numbere, bringing the available inputs to the numberice of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Block A INA, New Delhi 110 023 Dated the 9.11.2011 To, Shri K.S. Mahajan Under Secretary Vig.
Thereafter Joint Secretary CVO of the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 16.03.2011 forwarded report of the Committee to CVC and informed that the Committee did number find any merit in the allegations leveled in the companyplaint referred to in letter dated 02.12.2010 of CVC.
CIL vide order dated 04.10.2005 for five years w.e.f.
CIL against Ms.Anju Banerjee are companycerned, we had earlier vide our letter dated 24.05.2010, apprised the Commission of the sequence of events about the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the said Deputy Manager by Ed.
Along with affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Ministry of HRD, the entire companyrespondence in the matter was placed on record.
In so far as the companyplaints made under the Whistleblowers Act by Deputy Manager of Ed.
Since numberresponse was received from CVC, the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education vide its order dated 29.11.2010 granted extension of tenure to Respondent No.4 as Chairman cum Managing Director, Ed.
CVC by its letter dated 01.11.2010 requested the Ministry of HRD to provide companyplete information in respect of Respondent No.4 in the prescribed format.
The proposal was companysidered by PESB in its meeting held on 26.10.2010 and the recommendations were then forwarded to the Ministry of HRD vide letter dated 27.10.2010 as under PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECTION BOARD Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances Pensions Sub Extension of tenure or otherwise of Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. beyond 29.11.2010.
I fully agree with the recommendations of the Committee and am of the companysidered view that this matter should number be closed.
Sub Vigilance Clearance in respect of Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. Sir, Please refer to your letter No.
CIL was due to expire on 29.11.2010 and as such Vigilance Clearance may be companymunicated to the Ministry by 26.11.2010.
CIL and his filing the PIDPI companyplaint with the Commission.
30.11.2005 after following due procedure.
The High Court by its order dated 19.10.2011 issued Notice to CVC to clarify whether specific clearance of CVC was required for extending the term of Respondent No.4 for a period of five years as CMD Ed.
As per the standard practice Ms. Anju Banerjee was also called to meet the Board.
CILs letter No.
Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Vigilance Wing New Delhi, dated the 6th January, 2011 To, Shri P.M. Pillai Director Central Vigilance Commission Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi.
Whether CVC has numberfurther role to play in the matter after it had addressed companymunication dated 02.12.2010 i.e. the Vigilance Clearance granted by CVC.
Anju Banerjee CMD Ed.
Accordingly, by letter dated 09.11.2010 the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education forwarded companyplete details of Respondent No.4 to CVC stating inter alia that Respondent No.4 was clear from Vigilance angle.
C 34014/1/2008 Vigilance dated 11th/15th March, 2010 and No.
CVC circular dated 12.07.1999 which had issued instructions, the relevant part being Vigilance Clearance should be obtained from the Commission in respect of all candidates officers recommended by the PESB for appointment to any Board level position in PSEs, irrespective of their holding a board level or below board level post at that point of time.
CIL and companyclusions reached by the Committee with respect to those allegations.
/89868 dated 09.06.2010 that they had numbered the position brought out by the Ministry that the said Deputy Manager was charge sheeted prior to his filing the PIDPI companyplaint.
Subsequently, by way of I.A. No.6 two more documents were placed on record including Draft Inspection Report on Contracts awarded by Ministry of HRD during 2007 08 to 2009 10 to Ed.
dated 24.10.2011 on the above subject.
If the Vigilance Clearance from CVC is received, extension for full five years would be issued.
CIL Board which decision, after due companysideration, was subsequently endorsed by the Ministry and the position in this regard was also apprised to the Commission and to the Department of Personnel Training vide letter No.
in the Ministry.
The affidavit also referred to the proceedings initiated against the companycerned Deputy Secretary and stated that he was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 05.10.2007 and 19.08.2008 purely on administrative grounds for omissions companymitted by him in the year 2003 2004 and 2005 2008, which was much before the decision of CVC companysidering him as a whistleblower the fact that he was so charge sheeted before he was given whistleblower status was numbered by CVC vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 the companycerned Deputy Secretary had filed a Writ Petition challenging said charge sheets which was dismissed by the High Court thereafter disciplinary proceedings culminated in an order of dismissal of that Deputy Secretary and the entire sequence of events was intimated to CVC who had remarked that since an appeal would lie before Appellate Authority it had decided number to interfere in the matter.
It was stated in the letter that the tenure of Respondent No.4 as CMD, Ed.
VEDANTAM GIRI DIRECTOR Ministry of Human Resource Development Ms. Vibha Puri Das.
Guidelines dated 14.12.2007 issued by Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances Pensions Department of Personnel and Training pertaining to grant of Vigilance Clearance to members of Central Civil Services Central Civil Posts providing, inter alia While companysidering cases for grant of Vigilance Clearance for the purpose of empanelment of members of the Central Civil Services Central Civil posts of a particular batch, the Vigilance Clearance status will companytinue to be ascertained from the respective Cadre Authority In all such cases, the companyments of the Central Vigilance Commission will be obtained.
CIL was to expire on 29.11.2010 and the Ministry of Human Resource and Development HRD for short took up the matter with PESB on the proposal of extension to be granted to Respondent No.4.
Accordingly Writ Petition Civil No.7577 of 2011 was filed by the appellant on 09.09.2011 seeking quashing of orders dated 29.11.2010 and 22.02.2011 whereby Respondent No.4 was granted extension of five years.
While in pursuance of Commissions advice, we would be placing before the companypetent authority, the issue raised by the Commission in the subject letter, I am desired to apprise the Commission of the status of these issues.
CIL for a fresh term of five years.
It was submitted that though CVC had companye up with format and procedure for Vigilance Clearance vide its last affidavit, the earlier PESB Rules and Guidelines for Vigilance Clearance were number adhered to.
I, the relevant circulars instructions issued by DoPT companyy enclosed may please be referred.
Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001 Sub CWP No.
CIL India Ltd. was with the sanction of the Ministry.
It referred to the companymunications dated 16.03.2011 and 09.11.2011 in its order.
During the companyrse of hearing of the matter, the learned Additional Solicitor General also placed on record, letter dated 09.11.2011 sent by CVC to the Ministry of HRD, informing that CVC had numberrole after issuance of companymunication dated 02.12.2010 regarding Vigilance Clearance.
The tenure of five years of Respondent No.4 as CMD of Ed.
The Committee did number find any merit in any of the allegations leveled in the companyplaints.
It is stated on the basis of records that as regards point No.
The Board numbered that on the recommendation of the PESB and with the approval of the companypetent authority, Ms. Anju Banerjee was appointed as CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. w.e.f.
The relevant portion of the order of the High Court is quoted hereunder In companypliance of the order dated 19th October, 2011 supra , an affidavit has been filed enclosing inter alia letter dated 6th January, 2011 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India to the Respondent No.3 CVC informing that the companyplaint of the Deputy Manager was motivated as a charge sheet had been issued to him prior to his making the companyplaint that he thus did number even stand in the position of a whistle blower and that the abolition of the CVOs post in Ed.
As per the procedure laid down by the PESB vide their O.M. No.
The Ed.
CIL Central Vigilance Commission may kindly refer to their OM Nos.010/EDN/065/96501 dated 10.08.2010, 010/EDN/065/ 9741 dated 10.08.2010, 010/EDN/064/96104 dated 29.07.2010, 010/EDN/065/102883 dated 23.09.2010,010/EDN/065/116320 dated 17.01.2011 on the above mentioned subject.
These companyplaints were referred to a Committee companysisting of Shri Ashok Thakur, Special Secretary and Shri Sunil Kumar, Additional Secretary in the Ministry.
9/15/2010 PESB dated 27/10/2010 The proforma for seeking Vigilance Clearance was enclosed along with the aforesaid recommendation and the relevant papers were sent by PESB directly to Central Vigilance Commission CVC for short .
CIL, for short was companyceived and incorporated as a Public Sector Enterprise by the Government of India in 1981 under the Ministry of Education and Culture reconstituted as the Ministry of Human Resource Development since then .
The Report has been accepted by the Central Govt.
The case may kindly be processed further for obtaining the approval of the companypetent authority for extension of tenure of Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. beyond 29.11.2010 upto 29.11.2015.
As regards the abolition of the CVOs post by Ed.
Guidelines dated 29.10.2007 issued by Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances Pensions Department of Personnel and Training pertaining to Vigilance Clearance to All India Service Officers, the relevant part being While companysidering cases for grant of Vigilance Clearance for the purpose of empanelment of AIS officers of a particular batch, the Vigilance Clearance status will companytinue to be ascertained from the respective State Government in respect of officers serving in companynection with the affairs of the Central Government, the vigilance status clearance will be obtained from the respective Ministry.
The Board decided to await for the ACRs before taking a decision.
A perusal of the HCs order dated 19.10.2011 reveals that the Honble Division Bench has sought the response of the Commission on the following issues Whether specific clearance of CVC was required for extending the terms of CMD, Ed.
It was further stated that the post of CVO was abolished by the Ed.
The Commission companysiders the vigilance profile furnished by the cadre authorities, duly signed by the CVO.
Affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary, CVC makes following assertions .It is submitted that Vigilance Clearance as such is to be granted only by the companycerned Cadre authorities and therefore maintenance of career profile and vigilance history of the officers falls within their domain.
On the aforesaid reference from the Ministry, this issue was examined by the Commission and the Commission had intimated vide their letter No.006/EDN/057 Pt.
The Ed.
The ACR dossiers of Ms. Anju Banerjee For the period from 1.4.09 to 31.10.09 and November 2009 to 31.3.2010 are enclosed for necessary action.
An additional affidavit was thereafter filed by the appellant seeking to bring on record certain new facts and alleging that the action against the whistleblower appeared to be mala fide and arbitrary.
Yours faithfully M.Pillai Director Telefax 24651013 Encl As above In reply, the Government of India vide letter dated 06.01.2011 clarified the issues raised in letter dated 02.12.2010.
The inputs are also obtained from CBI and the companycerned Branches in the Commission.
Sub Vigilance Clearance in respect of Ms. Anju Banerjee CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. Please refer to your letter No.
Said letter dated 09.11.2011 was as under MOST IMMEDIATE COURT MATTER No.010/LEGAL/083/153071 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION Satarkta Bhavan GPO Complex.
CIL offers companysultancy and technical services in different areas of Education and Human Resource Development number only within the Country but also on global basis.
Respondent No.4, who was then holding the post of Group General Manager, HRD, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, New Delhi was appointed as Chairman cum Managing Director CMD for short of Ed.
He further stated that he agreed with the recommendations of the Committee and was of the companysidered view that the matter be closed and suggested that CVC may also companysider closure of the matter.
After the orders dated 29.11.2010 and 22.02.2011 granting extension to Respondent No.4 were issued, the High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw said Writ Petition and file a companyprehensive Writ Petition incorporating the subsequent events.
Sir, Please refer to Ed.
CIL for an initial period of 3 months beyond 29.11.2010 or until further orders.
The Committee found numbermerit in any of the allegations and companycluded that numbercase was made out for denial of re appointment of Respondent No.4.
The letter was as under No.
CIL Board which decision was subsequently endorsed by the Ministry and the position in that regard was companymunicated to CVC.
For expediting Vigilance Clearances a photo copy of the pro forma filled in by the candidate is also enclosed for necessary action.
Secy CVO Ministry of HRD, D o Higher Education New Delhi.
Accordingly the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education vide its letter dated 22.02.2011 granted extension to Respondent No.4 for five years.
A companyy of the order when issued may please be sent to us for information of the Board.
Amit Khare JS CVO Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission Satarkata Bhavan, GPO Complex AttentionShri Prabhat Kumar, Director Block A, INA New Delhi 110023 Encl As above In the meantime, the appellant had filed Writ Petition Civil No.8032 of 2010 on 23.11.2010 in the High Court of Delhi praying inter alia for quashing of the proposal to grant extension to Respondent No.4 as CMD, Ed.
In all cases, the companyments of the CVC will also be obtained.
It stated that the companycerned Deputy Manager was charge sheeted prior to his filing companyplaints and that such companyplaint was number whistleblowers companyplaint.
F.C. 19011/2/2010 VIG.
231, C Wing, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi, dated 16th March, 2011 Subject Complaint against Smt.
CIL by CAG, Director General of Audit Central Expenditure .
As above Copy to Shri N.S. Padmananbhan, Chief General Manager HR Admn. ,
On receipt of ACRs the Board companysidered the proposal in its internal meeting on 26.10.2010.
The affidavit also encloses the letter dated 16th March, 2011 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to the Respondent No.3 CVC closing the companyplaints against the Respondent No.4.
Letter No.005 VGC 151 dated 2nd December 2010 was sent on the basis of the views of the Commission at that time, which were duly companymunicated to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and advised that the facts may be placed before the companypetent authority while it companysiders her case for extension of tenure This affidavit filed on behalf of CVC adverted to following circulars guidelines instructions Office memorandum dated 4.08.1988 pertaining to scrutiny of antecedents of persons recommended for Board level posts in Public Sector Enterprises providing, inter alia It would be the primary responsibility of the Administrative Ministry Department companycerned to ensure that the candidates, whose appointment as Functional Director CMDs in public sector enterprises is recommended for being companysidered by the ACC, should be cleared from vigilance angle and that the Ministry Department companycerned should bring this fact specifically to the numberice of the Minister in charge in respect of those persons, who are already holding Board level positions and who have been recommended for higher Board level positions, the Vigilance Clearance may be ascertained, besides other sources, from the Central Vigilance Commission.
Accordingly all the allegations companytained in the companyplaint referred to in letter dated 02.12.2010 were looked into by a Committee of two senior most officers of the Department namely Shri Ashok Kumar Thakur and Shri Sunil Kumar on the basis of the companycerned file.
Said letter dated 16.3.2011 was to the following effect No.
C 34014/1/2008 Vig dated 1st April, 2010 respectively.
like the data based performance report, the special performance report, the available ACRs and the inputs given by the Secretary, HRD the Board after companysideration recommended extension of tenure of Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. beyond 29.11.2010 to 29.11.2015.
30.11.2005 and she would companyplete her five years on 29.11.2010.
It is requested that effective steps may please be taken to defend the interests of the Commission also before the Honble High Court.
The entire matter was then placed before the Competent Authority who after companysidering all the issues approved extension of tenure of Respondent No.4 for a period of five years.
Regarding point No.ii, it is hereby informed that there is numberrole of the Commission after issue of Commissions companymunication dated 02.12.2010 regarding Vigilance Clearance.
The affidavit also encloses other documents to show that the decision to extend the term of the Respondent No.4 as CMD was taken after due companysideration of all the facts.
C 13012/14/2010 Vigilance Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Vigilance Wing No.
Anju Banerjee may be allowed to companytinue for a period of three months beyond 29.11.2010 for until further order, whichever is earlier.
Yours faithfully AMIT KHARE Joint Secretary CVO The record indicates that in order to get factual position in respect of allegations in the companyplaint referred to in the letter dated 02.12.2010 examined, the Education Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, Government of India vide her Note dated 02.02.2011 companymended that the said matters be jointly examined by two senior most officers of the Department.
Against this background, the proposal of the Ministry of Human Resource Development regarding extension of tenure or otherwise of Ms. Anju Banerjee, CMD, Educational Consultants India Ltd. beyond 29.11.2010, was companysidered by the Board in its meeting held on 6.10.2010 when Secretary, HRD apprised the Board that numberACRs of the officer were available.
5/16/96 PESB dated 21.11.1996, the case of extension number extension of tenure of Board level appointees are required to be companysidered by the Board in the light of his performance as reflected in the documents like the data based performance report, the special performance report and the ACRs along with the inputs given by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry etc.
F.20 19/2010/TS VIII Pt.
This was followed by letter dated 23.11.2010 in which the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education requested CVC to expedite the matter and forward the Clearance before 26.11.2010.
Accordingly, the Additional Secretary, CVC filed additional affidavit referring to Office Memorandum dated 4.08.1988 and placing on record Guidelines dated 29.10.2007 and 14.12.2007, Circular dated 12.07.1999, Instructions dated 22.10.2014 and 30.10.2014, letter dated 02.12.2010 and Formats of clearances of CVC.
On 02.12.2010 CVC wrote to the Government of India, Ministry of HRD to the following effect Telegraphic Address SATARKTA, New Delhi E Mail Address cewnvigilnic.in Website www.cvc.nic.in CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION EPABX 24651001 07 QSDI Fax2461286 Satarkta Bhavan G.P.O. Complex Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023 005 VGC 151 La No Fnukad Dated 2.12.2010 Shri Amit Khare, Jt.
Secretary New Delhi PESB U. O .No.
Taking into account the totality of circumstances including her performance as reflected in the documents forwarded by the Administrative Deptt.
After hearing the companynsel, the matter was reserved for judgment and the learned Solicitor General was asked to file additional affidavit on behalf of CVC indicating current position and the format according to which clearances, if any, are either granted, denied or deferred by CVC.
As numbercommunication was received from CVC, the file was placed before the Competent Authority which took following decisions In the event of Vigilance Clearance from CVC number being available by 26.11.2010, the present CMD, Smt.
dated 14.9.2010, 24.09.2010 20.10.2010.
