Why was ex-DGP Saini mum all these years, questions vigilance

LUDHIANA : Strongly objecting to former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini’s application in court that he be heard before an order is pronounced on the cancellation report in the 2007 city centre scam, the state vigilance has questioned that ‘why did the officer keep mum all these years’.

In its reply before the court of district and sessions judge Gurbir Singh by Punjab’s director, prosecution, Vijay Singla, the vigilance has also questioned the investigation in the scam that the bureau had done from 20072012, when Saini was director. The case has been adjourned to December 17, when Saini will file a rejoinder to this reply.

The vigilance bureau had registered the city centre scam case in March 2007, wherein Captain Amarinder Singh, his son Raninder Singh, and former local bodies minister Jagjit Singh, now no more, were named along with others for allegedly causing monetary loss to the state. They had awarded the contract for a multi-million rupees mega project for the City Centre in Ludhiana to a New Delhi-based construction company.

The closure report in the case was filed last year and the court is hearing arguments on it.

Calling Saini’s application politically motivated, the bureau stated that the material, if any, was intentionally concealed, indicating that the investigation was not done fairly.

‘KEPT QUITE INTENTIONALLY’

“The former DGP has said that he wants to submit some material and sensitive documents for the perusal of the court, which he could have given during service, especially when he remained working in the vigilance for more than four years... he kept mum and intentionally concealed material, if there was any,” the vigilance reply reads.

“Sumedh Saini has never acted in a private capacity while discharging the functions of director, vigilance bureau, Punjab. So, once he has demitted office on his transfer he has no role to play and has become functus-officio,” said Singla, adding, “The closure report was filed on August 9, 2017...It is strange that the applicant has filed the present application after such a long period despite the fact that he was in service till June 30, 2018... the application has been moved for extraneous reasons.”