Sanjeev Pargal
JAMMU, June 19: Full State Vigilance Commission (SVC) has held that the rules governing the SVC and State Vigilance Organisation (SVO) have been violated in filing closure report before the State High Court in high profile case of backdoor appointments in the Legislative Assembly involving two former Speakers affiliated to National Conference and directed the Chief Secretary to initiate administrative action against Director Vigilance Sheikh Owais Ahmad, an IPS officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP).
Official sources told the Excelsior that the full Vigilance Commission has passed the order after detailed examination of the reply filed by the Director Vigilance Organisation, the order passed by the High Court for filing closure report before it in the backdoor appointment case and getting independent reports about the recruitment made by two former Speakers of the Legislative Assembly during their tenure.
The full Commission meeting was presided over by the State’s Chief Vigilance Commissioner Kuldeep Khoda and attended by the two Commissioners—Dr RK Jerath and Mrs Gous-ul-Nisa Jeelani. The full bench order was issued more than a month after the Director Vigilance submitted his view point to the SVC responding to the explanation sought from him by the Commission after going through the news reports that the High Court had rejected the closure report filed by the Director Vigilance in backdoor appointments case.
Owais Ahmad is due to retire on June 30, 2015 i.e. in the next 11 days. The closure report had been filed in the High Court barely three months before his retirement by the Director.
“It is worthwhile to bring it to the notice of the Director Vigilance Organisation that violation of Acts and Rules can be taken advantage of by the accused persons in the court of law, which can prove highly detrimental in curbing the menace of corruption in the State,’’ the full bench order read.
It said: “copy of the order shall go to the Chief Secretary for necessary administrative action and the Director Vigilance Organisation is advised to ensure strict compliance of the State Vigilance Commission (SVC) Act and the Rules’’.
Sources said the full bench observation that violation of Acts and Rules of the SVC can be taken advantage of by the accused was an indication that the persons responsible for making backdoor appointments during their tenure in the Legislative Assembly can take the plea during judicial determination of the case that the SVO had closed the case against them during the inquiry.
“It has been clearly established that while closing the instant inquiry, the SVO flouted Rule 23 of J&K SVC rules. It also established that an effort has been made to mislead the (State Vigilance) Commission and suppress the facts. The inquiry was closed arbitrarily bypassing the Act and Rules by the SVO that amounts to disobedience and non-compliance of law and rules.
“In this particular case when the matter was brought to the notice of the Commission through a complaint lodged by Prof SK Bhalla in the High Court, the Commission found that the Vigilance Organisation had already closed the inquiry without any intimation and seeking mandatory advice from the Commission,’’ the full bench SVC order read.
It said the report furnished by the Director Vigilance Organisation on 18/5/2015 in response to explanation sought from him by the Commission mentioned that Section NGO is provided under the Vigilance manual and under it he (the Director) can conduct the inquiry and conclude on its own.
“The Commission on perusal of the Vigilance manual revealed that inquiry under NGO falls within the ambit of secret inquiry. Under Rule 26 of the Vigilance Commission, rules mandatory lays down that the SVO before arriving at any final conclusion of secret inquiry shall share findings with the Commission. And the Commission after examination of fresh conclusion reached by the Vigilance Organisation may issue such directions as may be deemed proper to reach rightful conclusion,’’ the SVC order said rejecting the Director Vigilance claims that he was empowered to conduct inquiry on his own under the NGO Section and submit report to the Court.
Earlier, the full Commission had taken strong exception to closure of complaint against two former Speakers by the SVO without mandatory approval of the Commission and sought personal appearance of the Director Vigilance on April 18 after going through the news reports that the High Court had rejected closure report of the SVO. The Director Vigilance had filed his report before the Commission on May 18.
“Under the existing norms and procedure, the State Vigilance Organisation had to inform and take consent of the Vigilance Commission before filing closure report of any complaint or case. However, in this particular case, the Vigilance Organisation didn’t file report before the Commission but straightway before the High Court,’’ sources said.
Sources said the Vigilance Commission had 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 and now sitting MLAs of the ruling party.
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