Today( 22nd August),The Delhi High Court raised serious concerns about Pankaj Dwivedi’s appointment as Union Bank Executive Director amid unresolved sexual harassment charges. The case highlights issues regarding the integrity of public sector appointments and the CVC’s role in clearances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today( 22nd August), The Delhi High Court expressed serious concerns regarding the appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as the Executive Director of Union Bank of India, despite an unresolved sexual harassment chargesheet against him. This case raises crucial questions about the integrity of public sector appointments and the role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in providing necessary clearances.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela scrutinized the appointment process, particularly focusing on the apparent bypassing of the CVC’s clearance. The Bench questioned the counsel representing the Central Government, seeking clarity on how Dwivedi could have been appointed without the requisite approval from the CVC.
“How is this possible in the current climate? Vigilance clearance is necessary, and the overall situation must be considered. If clearance was denied, how could he be appointed? He should not have been appointed without prior clearance.”
– the Court remarked, highlighting the potential oversight in the appointment process.
The High Court did not stop at merely questioning the appointment. It took a step further by issuing notices to the Central Government, the Central Vigilance Commission, and Pankaj Dwivedi himself, directing them to file their respective replies. The Court emphasized the urgency of addressing this issue by scheduling the next hearing for October 4.
The Court’s intervention was prompted by a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a woman who accused Dwivedi of sexual harassment. The petitioner contested Dwivedi’s appointment on the grounds that a chargesheet, based on her complaint and a First Information Report (FIR), was still pending against him.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued before the Bench that-
“According to the rules, a person cannot be appointed to a senior position such as Executive Director at a major public sector bank like Union Bank without obtaining vigilance clearance.”
He further emphasized that-
“Such appointments cannot be made if there is a pending chargesheet against the individual.”
Bhushan elaborated on the alleged procedural lapse, stating that-
“In Dwivedi’s case, the appointment was made without vigilance clearance, and after he assumed the position, the CVC denied him clearance.”
This raises significant concerns about the due diligence exercised in his appointment process.
Furthermore, Bhushan underscored the influence wielded by Dwivedi, suggesting that-
“Dwivedi is a highly influential individual, and it was his influence that led to the transfer of the petitioner.”
This transfer, which appeared to be a retaliatory action, was later quashed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, according to Bhushan.
The Bench, resonating with Bhushan’s concerns, remarked that –
“Nobody can manipulate the system.”
signaling the judiciary’s intent to ensure that justice prevails.
The Court also advised the government that-
“If remedial measures are needed, they should be implemented as soon as possible.”
indicating the importance of addressing the situation promptly to uphold the integrity of the appointment process.
