‘Complaints not serious’ but CVC candidate doesn’t get CBI job

Sources said the CBI also informed the PMO about alleged “adverse” IB reports against Pachnanda. But with the CVC pushing his name a second time, the PMO sought the advice of the Solicitor General – as the PM heads the Appointments Committee of Cabinet – and chose Ramasundaram only after the SG said it was permissible to pick another candidate.

However, senior CVC officials said the home ministry examined the complaints against Pachnanda after the CBI director raised the “negative remarks”’ on file against Pachnanda during the first selection meeting on November 13, 2013, and found the material against him to be non-incriminatory.

“The selection committee for appointing the additional director was convened twice and both times the recommendation was unanimous. The CBI director who opposed the candidature during the first meeting was present only as a special invitee. We were informed by the home ministry that the material provided by the CBI did not amount to anything serious and therefore we decided to go with the same name,” said a senior CVC official.

In fact, in one of the two cases cited by the CBI against Pachnanda, the agency had itself cleared him in a letter it had dispatched on November 11, 2005. “[His] explanation dated 31 October 2005 in connection with the subject matter has been accepted by the director, CBI and matter has been allowed to rest,” the letter had said.

CBI officials, however, stressed they were pitching for a candidate with an unblemished track record and had therefore sent the files about Pachnanda to MHA. It is for the same reason the DoPT got back to the CVC asking them if they wanted to amend their choice in view of the material on record. “It appears it is the home ministry which misled the CVC in this case,’’ a senior CBI official claimed.