[ad_1]
The Haryana government has decided to chargesheet a senior IAS officer for allegedly causing a financial loss to the state exchequer for re-allotment of a school site in Gurgaon in 2019.
The IAS officer, D Suresh, who is Haryana Resident Commissioner in Delhi, is facing three inquiries by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with plot allotment cases. The officer has termed the preliminary inquiries against him as “illegal” stating the same were conducted without “prior permission from the government”.
The latest decision to chargesheet the officer has been taken on the recommendation of the ACB (earlier State Vigilance Bureau) which has alleged irregularities in the re-allotment of plot for a school site in Gurgaon. The bureau in 2019 had recommended departmental inquiry against the officer, but this year it sought approval to launch an inquiry against him under section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. An FIR has already been registered in this case and two people arrested.
Sources in the ACB said that the investigating agency had sought approval for a regular inquiry against the IAS on the basis of a confessional statement of an accused arrested in the case who allegedly claimed before the investigators that “a bribe of Rs 25 lakh lakh was sought for a favour into the matter”.
According to sources, the accused claimed that he had given a bribe of Rs 20 lakh to the IAS officer to seek a favour, and kept Rs 5 lakh for himself..
Sources hinted that the government may take a final call on the plea for approval of a probe against the IAS officer only after “finding enough evidence against him”.
At present, the government has not yet taken a decision on the latest plea of ACB. However, the government recently decided to issue a chargesheet against the IAS officer and a few other officials. When contacted D Suresh told The Indian Express on Thursday that he has not been intimated about any such decision yet.
The case relates to allocation of 1.5 acre in Gurgaon’s Sector 55 -56 to Spring Dales School Society for a primary school. It has been alleged that the school site was re-allotted to a society in 2019 at the rates prevailing in 1993, thus causing a financial loss to the HSVP (Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran). In 2019, Suresh was chief administrator of Haryana Urban Development Authority (now HSVP)
In its 2019 probe report, the vigilance bureau had claimed that the respective sites — mentioned in the allotment letters issued by the HSVP in 1994 and 2019 — “were found to be different from each other”.
The bureau had blamed D Suresh for passing a speaking order in 2019 by “ignoring the orders passed by the then principal secretary Arun Kumar Gupta, and Punjab and Haryana High Court — to issue the allotment letter of 1.5 acre in favour of New Spring Day Public School Committee at the old rate, which led to financial loss to the government”.
Then the investigating agency had also stated, “But no evidence of any collusion with the beneficiaries has been found in this investigation so far. Therefore, it is suggested by the government to take departmental action against him under rule 8 of the All India Services (discipline and appeal) year, 1969”.
The bureau also recommended lodging an FIR against the persons who forged the signatures of the old members of the society, prepared the wrong documents and presented wrong facts before the authorities.
Apart from this case, the ACB in two other separate cases related to plot allotment, have recommended FIRs against the IAS officer and others on the basis of their preliminary inquiries.
On his part, D Suresh sent a representation to the state government in January this year and sought cancellation of the inquiries terming the same as “unauthorised”.
Regarding the case pertaining to the school site allotment, the IAS officer mentioned, “In his preliminary enquiry report, the then IGP SVB Subhash Yadav, had stated a huge financial loss was incurred to the state exchequer on account of a speaking order passed by the undersigned (D Suresh) in favour of aforementioned society. However he had not stated how much loss had occurred, how the undersigned is linked to such a loss through any meaningful evidence? Nor could he (Yadav) comprehend that the undersigned’s order which was passed as a result of direction of high court besides was also being appealable.
Since the order of the undersigned (D Suresh) was set aside by the then principal secretary, where is the question of loss to the exchequer?”
[ad_2]
