Ex- CBI chief Alok Verma's transfer demonstrates posts of 'lesser clout' requires 'lesser credentials'

Ever since Alok Verma was ousted as the CBI chief, the decision — politics aside — has been questioned on legal grounds. While a detailed scrutiny of the procedure followed in Verma’s transfer on 10 January is pending, it is clearly established that he was removed following all the stated rules and by the majority decision of the Selection Committee that has been entrusted with the powers to do so. The short order that sealed the Verma’s fate stated, “The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the following: (i) Shri Alok Kumar Verma, IPS (AGMU:79) is transferred from the post of Director, CSI and posted as Director General, Fire Services, Civil Defence & Home Guards for the residual period of his present term ending on 31.01.2019”. While the legality of the transfer cannot be contested as it was approved by the Selection Committee, an important question that needs to be asked in simple terms is how can an officer against whom more than one allegation of corruption was found to be substantiated and correct by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) be deemed fit to head another service, no matter how ‘insignificant’ the service is considered in the bureaucratic scheme of things. In the CVC investigation report, as highlighted by the Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge — who was part of the three-member Selection Committee and has dissented against Verma’s removal, out of 11 allegations levelled against Verma, while allegations in four cases were not substantiated, further inquiry was recommended. [caption id=“attachment_5577961” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of ex-CBI chief Alok Verma. News18[/caption] In one case, the allegation was partially substantiated and re-investigation by a different branch of the CBI was recommended. In one case, the allegation was substantiated and in another, it is said that allegations have been found to be true. In another case, the allegation was substantiated and it was stated that it “amounts to serious misconduct and warrants disciplinary and other actions”. The case in which the allegations were partially substantiated and require re-investigation pertains to a “failure to take action in gold smuggling case at IGI Airport”. The case in which allegations were found to be substantiated pertains to “attempts to induct tainted officers to the CBI”. The case in which the allegation is substantiated and amounts to serious misconduct and warrants disciplinary and other actions pertains to “exclusion of suspect from being named as accused in the FIR IRCTC case”. The case in which allegations are found to be correct pertains to “inordinate delay in finalising an investigation report in a bank fraud case against the main accused, indicating favoritism towards the main accused”. It can hardly be contested that an officer whose action was said to amount to “serious misconduct” warranting “disciplinary action” by all means had no right to hold the post of CBI chief. But then what makes the same officer eligible for the post of Director-General, Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards? Does this mean that the credentials that make for an upright officer are only required for posts and designations of clout? Can it be safely assumed that there is no possibility of corruption in the ’low-profile’ post of Director-General, Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards? This is not to suggest any doubt or cast any aspersions on Verma, but merely to ask policymakers how a ‘wrong’ person can be right for any job; that requires the same professionalism and integrity that its more significant peers are expected to have. In November 2017, a Delhi court acquitted a former director-general of the Home Guards in a corruption case 17 years after he was accused of holding disproportionate assets. While acquitting him, the court held that prosecution needed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused held assets that were disproportionate to the known sources of his income — and it had failed to discharge this burden. While the accused was duly acquitted by the court of law and can in no way be accused of corruption, it nevertheless helps in establishing a fact that corruption knows no boundaries. India had witnessed cases of corruption in the most unexpected areas. The fodder scam that took place in Bihar in the mid-1990s is a grim reminder of this fact. In 2004, a young bureaucrat in Bihar named Gautam Goswami was recognised by Time magazine as one of Asia’s young heroes. He was hailed and appreciated for leading the relief efforts in July 2004, during the flash floods, that devastated the state of Bihar. However the same Goswami was named by the Bihar Police as one of the prime accused in a scam in which flood relief funds worth Rs 17 crore were allegedly diverted to a private company. The case in point is that corruption is a possibility in the most unexpected places and can be carried out by the most unexpected ‘heroes’. In this context, transferring an officer whose act was found to amount to “serious misconduct” warranting “disciplinary action” to another post of the same seniority, but of much lesser clout only reaffirms the concept of ‘punishment posting’ that has no legal sanction in the administrative structure of any modern State. Perhaps, posts of ’lesser clout’ requires ’lesser credentials’ — a fact that Verma’s transfer highlights in the most striking fashion.