ACB DG files another affidavit, Ajit’s clean chit under cloud?
PARAMBIR SINGH IN HIS AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE NAGPUR BENCH ON TUESDAY, TENDERED AN APOLOGY FOR MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT HIS PREDECESSOR AND PRESENT MUMBAI COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SANJAY BARVE ABOUT IGNORING THE VIDC’S COMMUNICATION
NAGPUR: Adding to the confusion to the hasty “clean chit” granted to then water resources minister and former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar in the multi-crore irrigation scam, Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) Director General Parambir Singh has retracted one of his major statements about overlooking of a key communication of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) by his predecessor about the power of the state government. The retraction is important, as the communication was the foundation of the clean chit to Pawar.
Singh claimed that VIDC’S communication, dated 26th March, 2018, was received by ACB’S Amravati office, along with a report dated 20th March, 2018, which cited section 25 of the VIDC Act to justify by-passing the state government and submitting files directly to then water resources minister. Then ACB D-G Sanjay Barve, in his affidavit filed on November 26, 2018, rejected the justification offered by VIDC, in its response dated March 26, 2018 to the communication sent by ACB SP (Amravati) which tried to justify Pawar’s orders to send files directly to him.
Justifying the sharp U-turn taken by the ACB, its present head had claimed that his predecessor did not notice one VIDC report of March 26, 2018, that was filed in response to a query by SP Amravati to WRD. “Unfortunately, it wasn’t noticed by my predecessor. Neither were this report’s contents mentioned by him in his 2018 affidavit,” the ACB claimed.
Parambir Singh in his personal affidavit filed before Nagpur bench on Tuesday, tendered an apology for making a sweeping statement about his predecessor and present Mumbai Commissioner of Police Sanjay Barve about ignoring the VIDC’S communication.
Paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of Barve’s affidavit had specifically mentioned about opinion sought from Executive Director of VIDC about role of Respondent No 7 (Ajit Pawar) in the light of Maharashtra Rules of Business and Instructions. The VIDC quoted section 25 of VIDC Act 1997 under which the state has the power to give any direction to the corporation.
But then ACB head noted that “it was not germane (relevant) to the enquiry.”
The affidavit therefore did not deal with the report any further as the foundation was very hollow and rejected by the ACB while continuing its probe against Pawar.
Now, Parambir Singh has claimed that his predecessor mentioned the VIDC report, but “did not deal with it in the remaining portion of his affidavit” and also cited an order of the High Court dated October 17, 2018, which asked ACB to complete the scrutiny of the said communication.
Therefore, amending his latest affidavit dated December 19, Singh, while tendering apology for confusion, has corrected the paragraphs to state “however, unfortunately the affiant (Barve) has not dealt with the same anywhere in the aforesaid affidavit”.
The affidavit has raised a question mark over the clean chit , as the foundation of this conclusion was VIDC’S communication .
Barve in his November 26, 2018 affidavit had stated that there was a “recurring pattern” in the irrigation scam, by “inflating tender cost, awarding work to favoured contractors and without obtaining any sanction from the Government and keeping Secretary of the WRD in dark”.
Wondering about “sinister similarity” in awarding irrigation contracts worth thousands of crore, he had noted that these “features” are not merely coincidental and indicate “a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Government under the garb of subverted and sham procedures and through the instrumentalities of minions in the department and its corporations like VIDC.”
Even the Principal Secretary of WRD had in his opinion cited rule 10 which stipulated it would be the duty of Secretary to bring to notice of Minister in charge and the Chief Secretary any departure from the rule and primary responsibility lies with Minister, if anything goes wrong.
Now, citing Rule 10, a clean chit has been granted as the role of Secretary in grant of sanction was dispensed by Pawar “to speed up projects in Vidarbha”.
Barve had noted that “scrutiny by the key functionary of WRD i.e. the Secretary of the Departmentwho is responsible for careful observer of rules, is conspicuously absent on all note-sheets pertaining to mobilisation advance and grant of sanction for the projects.”