Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Court of Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance Enquiry) on Monday ordered a further probe into the corruption case pertaining to palmolein import of 1992 to ascertain the role of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy who was the Finance minister in the Congress government behind the deal. The court granted three months for the Vigilance to conduct the probe.
Special Judge P K Haneefa ordered the probe rejecting the report submitted by the Vigilance,which said there was no evidence to arraign Chandy as an accused in the case,which had cost former IAS officer P J Thomas,the eighth accused in the case,the post of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC).
Following the court order,Opposition leader V S Achuthanandan demanded that Chandy should quit,which was rejected by the Congress and its allies.
The CPM raised doubts about Vigilance probing against the CM who holds that portfolio.
The Congress said its political affairs committee would have to look into whether Chandy should continue to hold the Vigilance portfolio.
Soon after the court order,several UDF leaders rushed to Chandy to review the situation.
Chandys rival and Congress state chief Ramesh Chennithala said there was no question of the CM quitting and added,The Vigilance report had clearly stated that the Finance department had no role in the case.
With Thomass exit as CVC and death of first accused former CM K Karunakaran,the case should have ended as a low-profile graft case in which the state exchequer had lost Rs 2.32 crore. However,it got a fresh lease of life on February 12,2011 with Congress leader T H Musthafa,the second accused,moving a discharge petition in the Vigilance court.
In a bid to wriggle out of trial,Musthafa,who had been the Civil Supplies minister at the time of the palmolein import,dragged the name of Chandy.
In the petition,Musthafa said when the proposal for the palmolein import came up,he had in writing suggested to put up the matter before Cabinet.
Except that,I had done nothing so as to implicate me in the case. My suggestion was endorsed by Finance minister Oommen Chandy. The matter was referred to the Cabinet. The prosecution which did not find any fault with the Finance minister,unjustly arraigned me as an accused in the corruption case, Musthafa had said.
Seizing the opportunity,on the eve of Assembly polls,the CPM decided to conduct further probe into the case. Subsequently,the Vigilance informed the court that further probe was required as more persons were involved. The probe was granted on March 15,with the court observing that only a formal permission was necessary for the prosecution to proceed with further investigation.
Although three months were allowed to complete the probe,on May 14,a day after the Assembly result was out,the Vigilance submitted the report,saying nothing could be drawn from the further probe.
