User:Ashokkumaraggarwal48

Pending case hits Neeraj Kumar's CBI race Bharti Jain, TNN Nov 21, 2012, 03.28AM IST NEW DELHI: The last lap of the race for who takes over from A P Singh as the CBI chief next month promises to be interesting, with the Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar moving the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against being benched on grounds of a pending court matter against him. The CAT will hear the matter on November 23. Kumar, a 1976 officer of UT cadre, who had a nine-year eventful stint with the CBI, ranked third in terms of seniority among the six names suggested by CBI director A P Singh for succeeding him. He had appeared a strong contender for the coveted job before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC)-led selection panel excluded him from consideration because of a case pending against him in the Delhi High Court. So, while the names of two senior-most officers — ITBP director-general Ranjit Sinha and National Investigation Agency (NIA) chief S C Sinha — the exclusion of Kumar's name paved the way for inclusion of the fourth senior-most candidate, DG (Home Guards), Uttar Pradesh, Atul in the panel. The case against Kumar relates to a petition filed by Vijay Agarwal, being investigated by the CBI in a disproportionate assets case along with his brother, the controversial ex-ED official Ashok Agarwal, seeking a direction for filing a police complaint against Kumar and another CBI officer Vinod Kumar Pandey for criminal intimidation and illegal confinement of an accused. Government sources have justified the "red card" because of the embarrassment UPA suffered when P J Thomas's appointment as Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) was cancelled because of a pending criminal case. "Even if the decision seemed slightly unfair on Kumar, the selection panel feared his suitability for the CBI director's post could eventually be challenged in the court," said a senior government official. However, others argued that the two cases are as different as apples and oranges. "Unlike Thomas, the case against Kumar is not that of alleged personal corruption. The case is against the CBI", said a senior official source, stressing that Kumar has been cleared in all the in-house investigations conducted by the CBI. Interestingly, he got a clean chit based on investigation by S C Sinha, who now heads the NIA. Vijay Agarwal alleged in that they were criminally intimidated by a CBI Inspector directly at Kumar's instance. They even claimed that after he had intimidated them, the Inspector concerned called up Kumar in their presence to inform him that his (Kumar's) instructions had been carried out. Based on the complaint, Justice R C Jain of the Delhi HC on his last day on the bench ordered a probe against Kumar. The order struck many because Justice Jain had asked for the investigation against the senior CBI officer to be conducted by Delhi Police's Special Cell and by an officer of a rank not below that of ACP. It was stayed by a two-judge bench of the High Court. Those who feel that Kumar should not have been passed over feel that the selection panel neither failed to take into account that vested interests often use "motivated and mala-fide" complaints as weapons, or that both the CrPC as well as the Delhi Police Special Establish Act which governs the CBI seek to protect officers against such risks. They fault the "play-it-safe" reasoning of the selection committee also because it implies his mere inclusion in the panel would have automatically guaranteed Kumar the leadership." It is like saying that a decision in favour of Kumar was ordained had he stayed in contention", said an official, arguing that the selection panel should have left for the government to decide instead of prejudging the matter itself. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-21/india/35257531_1_cbi-officer-cbi-inspector-disproportionate-assets-case