[ad_1]
The Haryana government has decided to indict a senior IAS official for causing financial loss to the state exchequer for the reallocation of a school site in Gurgaon in 2019.
IAS Officer D Suresh, a Delhi-based Commissioner of Haryana, is facing three inquiries by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with the plot appropriation issues. The officer described the preliminary investigations against him as “illegal,” noting that they were conducted without “prior permission from the government.”
The latest decision to charge the officer was taken on the recommendation of the State Vigilance Bureau (ACB) which alleged irregularities in the re-allocation of a plot of land for a school site in Gurgaon. In 2019, the office recommended an administrative investigation against the officer, but this year it requested approval to launch an investigation against him under Article 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Law. The FIR in this case has already been recorded and two people have been arrested.
Sources in the Anti-Corruption Bureau said the investigation agency had sought approval to conduct a regular investigation against IAS on the basis of a sectarian statement of a defendant arrested in the case who alleged before the investigators that a bribe of Rs 25 lakh had been requested. favor in this matter.
According to the sources, the accused claimed that he gave a bribe of Rs 20,000 to an IAS officer to get a favour, and kept Rs 5,000 for himself..
The sources hinted that the government may take a final decision on the petition to approve an investigation against the IAS officer only after “sufficient evidence is found against him”.
At present, the government has not yet decided on the latest petition of the ACB. However, recently the government decided to issue an indictment against the IAS officer and a few other officials. When contacted, D Suresh told The Indian Express on Thursday that he had not been notified of any such decision yet.
The case relates to the allotment of 1.5 acres in Gurgaon sector 55-56 to the Spring Dales School Association for a primary school. It was alleged that the school site was reallocated to the community in 2019 at the rates prevailing in 1993, causing financial loss to HSVP (Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran). In 2019, Suresh was the chief director of Haryana Urban Development Authority (now HSVP).
In its 2019 investigation report, the Office of Vigilance claimed that the sites in question — mentioned in assignment letters issued by HSVP in 1994 and 2019 — were “found different from one another”.
The office blamed D. Suresh for passing the speaking order in 2019 by “ignoring orders given by the then Principal Secretary Arun Kumar Gupta, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court – to issue a letter of allotment of 1.5 acres in favor of the New Spring Day Public School Committee at the old rate resulting in financial loss.” to the government.”
Then the investigating agency also said, “But no evidence of any collusion with the beneficiaries has been found in this investigation so far. Therefore, the Government is proposing to take administrative action against him under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) General, 1969.”
The office also recommended filing an FIR against people who forged the signatures of old members of the community, prepared false documents and presented false facts to the authorities.
Apart from this case, in two other separate plot-allocation cases, the ACB has recommended FIR against the IAS officer and others on the basis of their initial investigations.
On his part, Dr. Suresh sent a representation to the state government in January this year, and demanded that the investigations which were described as “unauthorized” be annulled.
Regarding the issue regarding school site allocation, the IAS official stated, “In his preliminary investigation report, the then IGP SVB Subhash Yadav stated that huge financial loss had been incurred by the State Treasury due to speaking order issued by the below signatory (D. Suresh) for the benefit of the said community. However He did not say how much loss occurred and how the undersigned relates to this loss by any meaningful evidence Nor could Yadav understand that the undersigned order made as a result of a directive from the Supreme Court was also subject to appeal.
Since the order of the undersigned (de Suresh) had been set aside by the chief secretary at that time, where was the question of the loss of the treasury? “
[ad_2]
