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

Hindustan Times (Patiala) - - Punjab - Anee­sha Sa­reen Ku­mar anee­sha.sa­[email protected]

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.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.