DAYS AFTER BEING INDICTED, SGPC EX-CHIEF SECY DIES OF HEART ATTACK
AMRITSAR : Former chief secretary of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Harcharan Singh, died of heart attack on Saturday, nearly a week after the SGPC panel announced legal action against him in the case of missing Guru Granth Sahib’s saroops.
Singh, 75, who stayed in Chandigarh, complained of chest pain in the morning and was rushed to a hospital where he died, said family sources.
A former vice-chairman of Punjab and Sindh Bank, he served as chief secretary of the apex gurdwara body from August 2015 to July 2017.
His hefty salary of Rs 3 lakh per month had sparked a row following which he voluntarily reduced it to Rs 1 lakh.
On August 27, while announcing legal action against Singh, the SGPC executive panel stated that he failed to discharge his responsibilities properly. He did not take any action despite knowing about the tampering of the record, said the SGPC, adding that it pointed towards his involvement.
Seeking a probe into Harcharan Singh’s death, SAD (Taksali) spokesperson Karnail Singh Peer Mohammad said he was upset over being targeted by the SGPC.
AMRITSAR Questions on the 2016 fire incident that damaged holy saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib in large numbers, remain unanswered as the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) failed to provide record related to it, the Akal Takht inquiry report says. The SGPC made public the concluding portion, around 10 pages, of this inquiry report on Saturday.
The incident took place on May 19, 2016 at the SGPC publishing house, in which holy saroops were damaged. The apex gurdwara body which was then headed by Avtar Singh Makkar had claimed that 14 saroops were damaged.
Underlining the role of the then SGPC chief secretary Roop Singh, the report reads, “Being a chief secretary, it was his responsibility to provide the inquiry commission the count and serial numbers of saroops damaged in the fire. He did not so, even as we demanded this record in written”.
The saroop incident and the fact that something was amiss was exposed in June this year, when the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO) raised the issue and termed the fire incident as one of the major reasons leading to the missing saroops. As per an SGPC office note that surfaced on Wednesday, the number of saroops was 80, though the gurdwara body has said that the note did not prove that the number was indeed 80.
The report also highlights the role of Satinder Singh, secretary (finance), “The record of the damaged saroops was not found in the publication department in writing. It was also not found at
Goindwal Sahib, where the damaged saroops were cremated. Satinder Singh was assistant secretary of this department in 2016, but he did not bring anything related to it on record”. The question arises then why did the SGPC not maintain its record? The Sikh bodies are seeking answer to this question.
Roop Singh, who quit on moral grounds, also indicted
The inquiry report has also indicted Roop Singh, who had quit as chief secretary on ‘moral grounds’. The SGPC executive committee had accepted his resignation during its August 27 meeting. The committee was silent over this indictment.
The inquiry report says, “Roop Singh was the secretary of the publication department in 2016, but he never carried out the actual attestation of the holy saroops. In 2015, Manjit Singh was secretary of the department, who ordered the staff to match the saroops kept in the publishing house with the record books, but after assuming this charge, Roop Singh did not get this task completed…being a chief secretary, his responsibility was to get detail of the annual audit, but he was irresponsible in the matter.”
Roop Singh, however, says, “I have been held guilty under a conspiracy, while actual culprits were spared. I tendered my resignation on moral grounds, but with my move, demand was also raised for president’s resignation. If I was guilty, why was my resignation approved? As far as the details of damaged saroops is concerned, I was not given the report of the flying department that had probed the fire incident. How could I provide it to the inquiry panel?”