Sanjeev Pargal
JAMMU, May 6: Alleged backdoor appointments in the Legislative Assembly made by two former Speakers today took a serious turn when full State Vigilance Commission (SVC) called for explanation of Director Vigilance Organisation Sheikh Owais Ahmad on or before May 18 after finding that the report submitted by him regarding closure of complaint in the appointments was “completely in violation of the Vigilance Commission Act and Vigilance Commission Rules”. A day after re-opening of the Civil Secretariat in Srinagar including office of the SVC, the full Commission met in the summer capital today to take up the report submitted by the Director Vigilance on closure of complaint filed by the Vigilance Organisation before the High Court regarding alleged backdoor and illegal appointments made in the Legislative Assembly by two former Speakers. The full bench Commission meeting was chaired by State Vigilance Commissioner Kuldeep Khoda and attended by two other members including RK Jerath and Mrs Gous-ul-Nisa Jeelani. Official sources told the Excelsior that the full Vigilance Commission took serious note of the report filed by the Director Vigilance in which he reportedly explained that he had invoked separate Section named `NGO’, which is exclusively looked after by the Director, to study the case closed door and decided to file closure report in the complaint on backdoor appointments. “There were only four Rules to deal with the complaints including Preliminary Enquiry, Open Verification, Secret Verification and First Information Report (FIR). The Vigilance Organisation didn’t follow any of the Rules. The NGO Section, cited by the Director Vigilance, is not in the Rules. At least, this was not provided in the latest Rules framed on November 19, 2013 after the State Vigilance Commission came into existence,” sources said. Finding ‘malafide intentions’ behind closure report, which the Vigilance Organisation had filed before the High Court without informing the State Vigilance Commission, the full SVC today decided to call explanation of the Director Vigilance Sheikh Owais Ahmad as to how and why he filed the closure report before the court allegedly “in violation of Rules and Procedures”. The full Commission has asked the Director to give reply to the explanation on or before May 18. Worthwhile to mention here that the Director Vigilance is scheduled to demit the office on June 30 on attaining superannuation. According to sources, the full Vigilance Commission has found several discrepancies in the reply filed by the Director Vigilance in the closure report of the complaint pertaining to backdoor and illegal appointments made in the Legislative Assembly during tenure of two former Speakers. The Commission was likely to pass further directions in the case after getting reply from the Director Vigilance on May 18. The full Commission had summoned all officers of the Vigilance Organisation, who had dealt with the complaint and were responsible for filing closure report before the High Court by-passing the Vigilance Commission. However, the Director Vigilance in his report to the Vigilance Commission had reportedly said that he exclusively dealt with the complaint. It was on April 22 that after going through the Excelsior report that the Vigilance Organisation has filed closure report in complaint of illegal and backdoor appointments made in the Assembly and MLAs Hostel by two former Speakers and that the High Court has expressed anguish over the closure of the complaint, the full SVC had held an extra ordinary meeting and took very serious note of the SVO surpassing the Commission to file closure complaint in the High Court without even taking mandatory approval of the Commission. Sources said the full Commission had taken serious note of the SVO decision to file closure complaint in serious matter that involved two former Speakers of Jammu and Kashmir without taking mandatory approval of the full Commission. The Vigilance Commission had obtained reports that two former Speakers of the Legislative Assembly were involved in the case of illegal and backdoor appointments with the connivance of the officials. “In the case, no advertisements had been issued to invite applications for the posts but the officials simply processed the cases and the appointment orders were issued in favour of few favourite candidates of the two former Speakers. Majority of the candidates engaged through the back-door were youths of the Assembly constituencies of the then Speakers,” sources said. They didn’t rule out the possibility of the Vigilance Organisation filing closure of complaint in haste with a view to shield the former Speakers. It may be mentioned here that the High Court had expressed anguish over the closure of a complaint alleging illegal and backdoor appointments in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat and MLA Hostels. The High Court, while issuing directions for reopening of the case, had made it clear that fresh probe shall be completed within a period of two months.
Follow our WhatsApp channel