New Delhi:Tamil Nadu Additional Chief Secretary Jagmohan Singh Raju has accused Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) K.V. Chowdary of "caste-based and malicious discrimination" against him.
Raju, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, has sent a notice to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), urging it to take action against Chowdary based on the recommendations made against the CVC by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
He sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi's intervention into the matter as per his commitment towards the welfare of the Scheduled Castes.
Raju, in the notice sent via his counsel Prashant Bhushan, sought the initiation of action to remove the CVC under the terms of Section 6 (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including making a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court for holding an inquiry.
The legal notice was sent to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), seeking registration of an FIR against the CVC under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The DoPT is under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The notice was also marked to the President, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary.
In the notice, Raju alleged that the CVC had acted in a discriminatory manner when he ordered re-investigation into some closed, pseudonymous complaints against him. As a consequence, Raju was denied vigilance clearance required for his empanelment to the post of Additional Secretary.
Also read: India has token representation of women in higher levels of judiciary: Hawaii SC judge
During the hearing of Raju's complaint in the NCSC, it was found that the committee appointed by the Vigilance Commission concluded that the charges against Raju couldn't be proved.
"If such a senior Scheduled Caste IAS officer has to face discrimination and injustice, leading to impediment to his career by delay in empanelment, then what is the recourse of the thousands of ordinary government servants belonging to SCs," the NCSC had observed.
The recommendations were made by the NCSC on December 9, 2016.
The Commission recommended that the government should carefully examine the case and initiate action under Section 4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The CVC did not submit any additional material to defend the charges levelled against him by Raju.
Under these circumstances, the NCSC repeated its observations in March 2017. When the DoPT did not consider the NCSC recommendations, Raju moved the Delhi High Court in December 2018. The high court directed the government to decide on the recommendations made by the NCSC.
Later the DoPT sought the views of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which in January this year, citing the Delhi High Court order, observed that the merits of the case indicated at the probability of applicability of Section 4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
The notice sent by Bhushan said that action should be taken against the officials responsible for the ill-treatment of Raju, who has had an "unblemished and illustrious career" of nearly three-and-a-half decades.
The notice alleged that no action was taken against the CVC despite the NCSC indicting him for acting maliciously towards the SC officer.
The notice also alleged that the DoPT, after gathering views from the Delhi High court, the NCSC, and the Ministry, surprisingly forwarded the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for necessary actions on the NCSC's recommendations.
Seeking the registration of a criminal case against the CVC, the notice said that Raju apprehended that the CVC could harass and intimidate not only him, but also family with the help of central agencies like the CBI, the ED and the Income Tax Department by registering false cases.
