Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Subodh Jaiswal has told the Bombay High Court that the petition filed before the Court by retired Assistant Commissioner of Maharashtra Police (ACP), Rajendrakumar Trivedi seeking Jaiswal's removal from the post of CBI Director has been filed out out of vendetta and vengeance. .In his response to Trivedi's plea, Jaiswal alleged that Trivedi holds a personal grudge against him and no case is made out for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.“No case has been made out by the Petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a personal grudge against the answering respondent and only out of sheer vendetta and vengeance” the counter affidavit by Jaiswal said..The affidavit was filed in the public interest litigation filed by Trivedi which challenged continuation of Jaiswal as CBI chief on the ground that he does not possess experience in investigation of anti-corruption cases and has doubtful credibility.The PIL by Talekar & Associates also questioned Jaiswal's credibility when he was heading a special investigation committee for investigating the scam of fake and counterfeit stamps involving several police officials including senior IPS officer Param Bir Singh..Jaiswal explained in the reply filed through Navdeep Vora & Associates that before his retirement, certain officers subordinate to Trivedi had sent a default report on him to Jaiswal, who after examination sent it across to the government for a departmental enquiry (DE) against Trivedi. Subsequently, such inquiry was initiated by the government in 2019, it was pointed out.In this backdrop, owing to the disciplinary action against Trivedi, he held a personal grudge, Jaiswal contended.“To settle this personal vendetta, the instant petition has been filed which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law to harass Jaiswal and tarnish his image and reputation,” Jaiswal emphasized..Jaiswal further stated that the present petition should not be viewed as an isolated incident of malicious proceedings against him.“The petitioner has been on a witch-hunt to malign the reputation of Jaiswal with the sole intention of involving Jaiswal in uncalled for litigations,” the affidavit stated.The affidavit also highlighted previous attempts by Trivedi of having approached the State and the High Court to oppose Jaiswal’s appointment as Director General of Police, Maharashtra..Regarding the fake stamp case, Jaiswal clarified that after the case was transferred to the CBI in 2004, the supplementary chargesheet filed by CBI included the findings of the SIT report headed by him..Interestingly, Trivedi, in turn, has filed a rejoinder making accusations against Jaiswal. In his rejoinder, Trivedi claimed that the DE against him was initiated by Jaiswal only because Jaiswal held a grudge against him. He pointed out that the State of Maharashtra had withdrawn the same as it was not supported by concrete evidence.After scrutinising the proposal to initiate disciplinary action, the charges were found to be not concrete and the State, therefore, decided to withdraw the charges against Trivedi and closed the DE.Trivedi urged that when examining whether a person is holding a public office validly or not, the court ought not be concerned with technical grounds of locus, delay, laches or motive behind the challenge.“Presuming the petitioner had a grudge against Jaiswal, the same cannot be ground to scuttle the petition at its very inception,” Trivedi underscored.He also reiterated that Jaiswal during his tenure as a Commissioner did not oversee or supervise investigations for corruption or bribe.“I reiterate that Jaiswal does not possess the necessary experience in investigation of cases of anti-corruption during his entire career,” Trivedi said in his response.