The Central Government, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Training, has recommended to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to initiate disciplinary action against Alok Verma, former CBI Director, for violating government Rules and regulations during his service and misusing his position.
Verma is facing investigation on the alleged charges of corruption to save meat exporter Moin Qureshi.
The controversy arose, when the CBI booked its second-in-command Rakesh Asthana on corruption charges and made him an accused in another bribery case. CBI DSP Devender Kumar, Dubai-based investment banker Manoj Prasad and his brother Somesh Prasad are named in the FIR.
Asthana sent a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, stating Verma, the CBI Director, had falsely implicated him and also revealed that the bribery allegations, which are levelled upon him in Qureshi case, should be against Verma instead.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervened and summoned the top two CBI officers, who had been battling each other. On the night of October 23, 2018, both of them were divested of their responsibilities and M. Nageswara Rao was appointed as Interim Director. Later, Asthana was cleared of all charges by CBI.
Verma then filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the government order, divesting him of his responsibilities. The Supreme Court on January 8, 2019 reinstated Verma, but restrained him from taking any major policy decision, till the probe is over.
The apex court also convened the Selection Committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, to study the Central Vigilance Commission’s (CVC) probe against Verma.
In compliance of the order passed by the apex court, the High Power Committee, led by Mr Modi and also comprising Mapanna Mallikarjun Kharge and former Justice AK Sikri, investigated the matter and removed Verma with a ratio of 2:1, taking in view the serious allegations in regard with corruption and various economical scam cases mentioned in the Central Vigilance Commission report against him.
The committee further transferred and asked Verma to join as Director-General of Fire services, Civil Defence and Home Guard. However Verma, while opposing his transfer, said that he is already 60 years old and cannot hold the post as the tenure of the very post expires on completing the age of 60 years. Verma gave his resignation, which was not accepted by the Home Ministry.
Consequently, the Home Ministry decided to take disciplinary action against him for refusing to hold his assigned post and not to join the services and made this clear that till the time the charges against him are uncertain, his resignation cannot be accepted.
Almost six months later, the Government set up a special committee to inquire about the allegations of misconduct against Verma and now after two years, the government has decided to recommend the matter to UPSC.
Why UPSC?
The UPSC is a constitutional body mandated to carry out a wide range of functions under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. These functions include advising the Government(s)/Ministries/Departments on the subjects that involve disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions to such matters.
However, exempted cases from consultation with the Commission have been listed under Regulation 5 in the Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958.
Disciplinary cases are referred to the Commission for expeditious disposal, as a Single Window System (SWS) is functioning in the Commission. Under this System, Ministry/Department/State Government, which refers a disciplinary case to the Commission for advice is also required to authorise an officer, not below the rank of Under Secretary, to hand over the case in person, with prior appointment, to the designated officer in UPSC. The concerned authority has to provide all the related documents of case records to UPSC.
For the first time in India, a former director of CBI has been referred by the Home ministry and the Department of Personnel and Training to UPSC, the custodian of all Indian officers, particularly Group 1 officers of all Indian services, to take action against him. It was also directed that major penalties will be invoked against Verma, which would mean that all the retirement benefits that would have been approved to Verma, would cease to exist.
Penalties
The Penalties imposed for disciplinary proceedings are prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
In terms of Rule 16(1-A) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, a Disciplinary Authority may hold an Inquiry under this rule [(manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14)] only where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such Inquiry is necessary for imposition of certain penalties such as withholding of increments which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay for period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period.
According to the sources, there is a possibility that the Government has also recommended UPSC to seize the provident fund and all the post retirement financial benefits, which could have been given to Verma, should be completely barred.
If the allegations levelled against Verma turned out to be true after going through the criminal trial, he might face punishment in accordance with law.
Section 171 E of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for bribery. It says, “Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.”
There are other criminal laws enacted by Parliament, specially to prevent corruption like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the punishment provided under Section 7 and Section 13 of this Act are as follows-
7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
Any public servant who,—
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
Also Read: Gauhati HC directs Arunachal Pradesh to file detailed affidavit on food grains supply to refugess
Explanation 1. A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly, if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2. The expression ‘‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful sources.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extend to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.