The palace intrigue in monarchies has given way to the tortuous twists of the bureaucratic labyrinth in a democracy. But every once in a while a journalist finds himself empathising with an upright bureaucrat who is hounded by the system with a litany of false accusations with the only express purpose of denying him a promotion that he richly deserves.

Back in the 1980s, the government-controlled Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) had recommended a panel of names from which the government could pick a director (finance) for the blue-chip public sector Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). The list in those days used to contain the names of three candidates, but the unspoken convention was to appoint the candidate who headed it.

Immediately after the list reached the Ministry of Petroleum, the country’s premier investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), raided the office and residence of the most favoured candidate and the investigation was not closed for three months.

The administrative ministry sent the name of the candidate ranked second on the list to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and he was named as director (finance). Within a few days, the CBI gave a clean chit to the man whose reputation had been tarnished by the raids. By then, the gentleman had been effectively denied the opportunity to become the director (finance) of the oil behemoth. This episode illustrates the seamy side of the appointments system in government and the lengths to which certain people can go to scuttle someone’s chances.

The CBI is not the only agency that is manipulated to wreck the chances of deserving candidates. The Central Vigilance Commission has also been vulnerable to such influences. Given the way the Indian bureaucratic system works, there could be several complaints levelled against any public sector employee. But once the candidate is vetted and chosen for a top position, should the vigilance sleuths be unleashed to pore over accusations just to nix his appointment. Why can’t this vetting be held before the recommendatory list is drawn up? Why shouldn’t the system of hounding the bureaucrats stop after he has been put on the shortlist?

This game of intrigue has been played out on innumerable occasions. The winds of liberalisation and the professions of openness and transparency that came with it ought to have ended this egregious system of cronyism within the corridors of power. But that hasn’t happened; in fact, it is being played out once again.

In the previous issue, we dealt with the intense personal torture that some of the selected candidates have had to undergo at the hands of the vigilance agencies. We said the latest victim of this pernicious system was P.K. Borthakur, who was recommended by the PESB for the post of director (offshore) of ONGC. We were told that he was cleared by the CVC and the file would go to the ACC. But Borthakur is not off the hook as yet.

We decided to delve a little deeper and find out what the brouhaha was all about. The accusation dates back to 2006 when Borthakur was Asset manager in Mumbai Offshore in charge of Bassein and Satellite Assets. He had ordered the transfer of a junior official in the installation section, based on a complaint from two others within his own Asset. The transferred candidate (transfer from offshore to Ankaleshwar resulted in monetary loss of Rs 15,000 per month) complained to the ONGC management, Petroleum Ministry and the CVC. Borthakur was cleared of all charges both by ONGC and the ministry but not by the CVC which has been sitting over it. If there was any evidence of wrongdoing, the vigilance agency should have recommended prosecution of Borthakur.

The post of director (offshore) of ONGC has been vacant for the last nine months. The way the CVC has held up a file without evidence to buttress the charge is blatantly wrong – and amounts to a gross subversion of the appointments system in the world’s largest democracy which professes to be transparent in everything that it does.

It is equally wrong on the part of a vigilance agency not to have recommended prosecution if it had hard evidence against him. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner must now intervene to ensure that his organisation is not manipulated by some vested interests.