MOIL CMD Appointment: Legally Cleared, Ethically Questionable
Vishwanath Suresh has pending matters before the Lokpal and the CBI linked to his tenure at SAIL
The appointment of Vishwanath Suresh as Chairman and Managing Director of Manganese Ore India Limited (MOIL) may have cleared official procedures, but it raises serious ethical concerns that cannot be brushed aside.
Suresh has pending matters before the Lokpal and the CBI linked to his tenure at SAIL. He was also under suspension from January to June 2024, drawing only a subsistence allowance. The balance salary for this period is reportedly still unpaid, indicating that the episode remains administratively unresolved. Revocation of suspension, it must be emphasised, does not amount to exoneration.
Despite this, Suresh moved swiftly from suspension to Director (Commercial) at NMDC and now to the CMD position at MOIL. This rapid elevation raises a fundamental question: should leadership of a Schedule ‘A’ PSU be decided on technical eligibility alone, or on unquestioned credibility?
While rules may permit promotion in the absence of conviction, ethics demands a higher standard. CMDs are custodians of public trust, not merely beneficiaries of procedural clearance. Appointing a top executive under a vigilance cloud sends the wrong signal to PSU employees and weakens faith in governance mechanisms.
The most troubling aspect is the precedent being set. If unresolved vigilance issues no longer matter, integrity risks becoming optional.
The appointment may be legally defensible—but ethically, it leaves far too many questions unanswered.
There is also quiet chatter in official circles about heightened interest from certain corporate players in the manganese space during the clearance process.
www.indianpsu.com spoke to Senior Advocate and former Vice President of the Supreme Court Bar Association on this matter. Mr Rai said “It is well settled that appointments to high public office must conform to the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. The Appointment Committee and the appointing authority are under a legal duty to consider all relevant material facts bearing on suitability, integrity, and public interest. Pending vigilance proceedings and absence of clearance are undeniably material considerations. Any decision taken in disregard of such relevant factors suffers from non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary, and fails the test of reasoned decision-making. An appointment made in such circumstances cannot be sustained in law and, at the very least, must be deferred or kept in abeyance until the officer concerned is duly cleared of all vigilance proceedings”.
We Report – You Decide…
