The Madras High Court today quashed the appointment of Karthikeyan as Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, saying the fact that he was facing departmental and vigilance proceedings had not been brought to the notice of the appointing authorities.
Justice V Ramasubramanian, before whom a petition filed by a journalist V Anbalagan came up in which the appointment was challenged, said "the fact that he faced departmental and vigilance inquiries for misdeeds had not been brought to the notice of appointing authorities."
The Judge, while allowing the petition, also noted that the the entire note for circulation, prepared by the deputy secretary to the government had gone up to the Chief Minister.
"It is surprising that in the matter of appointment to the coveted post of Chief Executive Officer of the Pollution Control Board, the government ignored to take note of pendency of proceedings. I do not know if it happened by chance or by a deliberate design."
Karthikeyan faced vigilance proceedings for some decisions he took as district environmental engineer from July 2008 to December 2010.
The Judge described the post of Member Secretary of TNPCB 'pivotal pin' which makes functioning of the wheel of the board smooth and said even in promotions and appointments to lower level posts, pendency of charges is taken as a bar and appointing authorities refuse to promote or appoint those facing disciplinary proceedings.
"In an attempt to save the appointment that was made without application of mind as to the pendency of two enquiries, government had whitewashed everything, making the remedy worse than the disease."
The judge cited the example of BCCI and said "if today, there is a cry for institutional integrity even in societies like BCCI, its importance hardly needs any emphasis in the case of public authorities such as TNPCB which perform statutory functions of great public importance."
The judge said there could be only two possibilities on the manner in which the appointment took place. Either the government had already decided on the choice of the candidate and hence completely ignored pendency of the proceedings or they made the appointment, overlooking pendency of proceedings and later cleaned up the records to justify it. In either case, it was not correct, he said.
