Wednesday 17 April 2019 1:58 AM UTC
MUMBAI April 17: BCCI Ombudsman Justice (Retd) DK Jain has summoned Sourav Ganguly for a hearing on April 20 over an alleged conflict of interest situation arising out of his dual role as Cricket Association of Bengal president and Delhi Capitals advisor. Coincidentally, Delhi Capitals are scheduled to play Kings XI Punjab at the Feroz Shah Kotla on April 20.
The Committee of Administrators (CoA), through BCCI CEO Rahul Johri, has requested the Ombudsman “to allow” Ganguly to continue in his dual role, provided he makes “full disclosures” of his interests.
However, the BCCI note also stated that the Ombudsman needs to “examine” Ganguly’s dual role as “member of Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC)” as well as DC advisor.
Three Bengal-based cricket fans — Bhaswati Shantua, Abhijeet Mukherjee and Ranjit Seal — had alleged that Ganguly’s duty as a state association president is in direct conflict with his role as an advisor of an IPL franchise.
“The parties may appear before the Ethics Officer, BCCI for a personal hearing on 20.4.2019 at 11 am, at New Delhi at the venue, which shall be communicated by the BCCI to the parties herein, by email, on or before 19.4.2019,” Justice Jain intimated to Ganguly’s legal counsel in an email which is in possession of PTI.
Justice Jain has also summoned Shantua, Seal and Mukherjee for depositions in person as per principles of natural justice.
The former India captain, in a written affidavit through his legal counsel, had refuted the charge.
“If the parties fail to appear before the Ethics Officer on the said date, it will be presumed that the Parties do not wish to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing, and the Ethics Officer shall proceed to decide the Complaint on the basis of the responses of the parties filed by the parties by 20.4.2019,” the Ombudsman wrote.
“There is a grey area in the examples of Conflict of Interest stated in the constitution,” a senior BCCI official said.
Johri in his letter quoted Rule 38(4) of the BCCI Constitution that states that “one individual cannot occupy the posts of “Office Bearer of a Member” and be in “governance, management or employment of a Franchisee” at a single point of time.
CLICK TO FOLLOW UKMALAYALEE.COM