CBI recently agreed to a probe by its Chief Vigilance Officer before the Delhi HC.
NEW DELHI :An Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC), working with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after putting in more than three years of efforts, has managed to get the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the CBI to look into the multiple instances of corruption that he had been raising before his seniors, including CBI chiefs.
The CBI recently agreed to a probe by its CVO before the Delhi High Court, which was hearing the case filed by the UDC seeking a proper probe into the alleged instances of corruption taking place in the organisation, to prove which, the personnel had submitted exhaustive evidence.
The CBI personnel in question, Pankaj Kalra, first wrote to the then CBI director on 30 December 2016 after receiving no response on his letters that he had been sending to other senior officials since January 2016, whistle-blowing on the corrupt practices which his senior officials were engaging in.
After repeatedly following up on his complaint, Kalra, who was posted in Dehradun at the time, was asked to submit his representation to Joint Director (Administration) on 20 April 2017, which he did, along with the entire trove of documentary evidence. Later, he submitted the same to the CBI Director on 4 May 2017.
A month later, an inquiry was ordered to look into the allegations that Kalra had made.
However, the inquiry gave a clean chit to everyone as it was based on the letter that was submitted by Kalra in December 2016, where he had just made a formal intimation without submitting annexures and documents to support his claim.
As a result of this clean chit being given without even a proper inquiry being conducted, Kalra approached the Delhi High Court in September 2017, seeking a CVC probe into the corrupt practices that he had highlighted.
Last month, after protracted legal arguments, the CBI told the Delhi High Court that its CVO would look into the allegations.
Kalra, in the court, through his lawyers, contended that the CBI should take disciplinary action against him, in case his allegations turned out to be false. “But they should first at least look into Kalra’s complaint and the annexures that he had submitted to the agency, that leave no doubt as to the truthfulness of the complaint,” a close associate of Kalra said.
Some of the allegations
An additional ASP with the agency, since 2012, has been claiming false travelling allowances by allegedly submitting bogus receipts. He has also been submitting bogus bills of his supposed stay at a guest house owned by BSNL despite not staying there.
A private contractor, who is involved in providing housekeeping manpower at the CBI headquarters in Dehradun, has not deposited service tax for the last 10 years, despite charging the same from the CBI.
The payment for furniture for a CBI safe house was pocketed by an ASP after stating that he had paid for them through his own pocket. No official process was followed either for purchasing the furniture or for making payment for them.
The annual maintenance contract for the CBI complex in Dehradun was being given to the same firm for many years. The firm was getting the contract by bidding for it under three false names, thereby quoting the lowest price. This practice was known to the CBI officials and was also brought into their notice, but no action was taken.
Despite the contract stating replacement of products free of cost if they stopped working during the guarantee period, new products were ordered from the same firm, which supplied the original product.
A head constable of the agency for years has been claiming medical bills for his father, stating that his father is dependent on him. Yet, the same head constable has purchased multiple properties, all of which he claimed were gifted to him by his father who is not an income tax assessee and does not even have a PAN card.
A disproportionate assets case against a special land acquisition officer with the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) and his family members, who had 14 properties registered in their names, was closed in their favour by a CBI ASP despite their income tax returns clearly showing that they did not have the financial capacity to purchase these many properties.