The Central Bureau of Investigation’s search on the premises of former bureaucrat Ramesh Abhishek has created a sense of uneasiness among former and serving influential officials who were allegedly dealing in corrupt practices, with a message going out that in his third term as Prime Minister, Narendra Modi will be ruthless on the issue of corruption.
On 2 February 2022, anti-corruption ombudsman body, Lokpal in an order by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose (Chairperson), Dinesh Kumar Jain (Member) and Indrajeet P. Gautam (Member) directed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to initiate an enquiry against former Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) Secretary Ramesh Abhishek, a 1982 batch Indian Administrative Officer of the Bihar cadre.
The Lokpal’s order had come on a complaint that was filed in May 2019 alleging that the Odisha born influential IAS officer, who retired in June 2019, had amassed properties more than his known source of income. The ED submitted its report to the Lokpal on 4 August 2022.
After the Lokpal order of February 2022, Abhishek approached the Delhi High Court seeking to stop the investigation. However, his request was rejected by Justice Pratibha Singh on 10 May 2023. This was followed by another report that was presented to the Lokpal by the ED, which also enquired into the aspect of conflict of interest Abhishek allegedly indulged in while being in important positions.
Sources said that the ED faced a lot of difficulties in pursuing the investigation, as when it approached Security Board and Exchange of India (SEBI) to seek files that were handled by Abhishek when he was a member of Forward Market Commission, that was merged into SEBI in September 2015, it was told that the files have gone missing.
After completing its investigations, the ED submitted a final report to the Lokpal which on 20 December 2023, after perusing the findings of ED, directed Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) to conduct investigation into doubtful transactions entered into by Ramesh Abhishek and his daughter Vanessa Agrawal by way of receiving big amounts as professional fee or consulting fee from various entities/organisations with whom Ramesh Abhishek had official dealings while he was Secretary DPIIT or Chairman Forward Market Commission. On 15 February 2024, the CBI registered an FIR against Abhishek and his daughter Vanessa under Sections 12, 13(2), 13(1)(b), 13(1)(d), 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 B and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The next day it carried out searches on the premises of Abhishek.
Interestingly, the CBI, as per the FIR, received the Lokpal order to register the FIR against the bureaucrat on 5 January 2024, more than 15 days after the order was issued by the Lokpal. The CBI took 40 more days to register the FIR. In all, between the Lokpal order and the registration of the FIR by the CBI, there was a gap of almost two months.
In the order by the Lokpal, it commented extensively—reproduced below—on the defence arguments that were put up by Abhishek’s lawyer, claiming that the allegations that were levelled against him were baseless and false. The Sunday Guardian is not making public the details of allegations that have been levelled against Abhishek and his family members, of buying multiple benami properties and being paid a large amount of money ostensibly as fees by multiple companies.
“We have gone through the relevant records filed by the public servant (respondent) with regard to the allegations of undue favour shown to his daughter and misuse of positions held by the public servant (respondent) as Chairman, FMC and Secretary, DPIIP, GoI. The public servant (respondent) has submitted year-wise income details of his daughter for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, from certain firms which are noted on Para 18 of this order. However, the public servant (respondent) has not submitted income details of his daughter upto the year 2019-2020 when the reconstruction of house building at 72, E Block, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi 110 048 was being done for which his daughter had gifted Rs.50 lakh to the public servant (respondent). Since the public servant (respondent) was holding very sensitive positions viz. Chairman, FMC and as Secretary, DPIIP, handling important industrial policies of the government, the Division Bench is of the opinion that issues arising out of conflict of interest also needs to be enquired into.
“The Divisional Bench has also noted that the public servant (respondent) has shown significant increase in his income after retirement. He was drawing around Rs.34.00 lakhs per annum when the public servant (respondent) was Secretary, DPIIT and after retirement, for the financial year 2020-2021, the public servant (respondent) has shown professional income (other than pension) to the tune of Rs.1,34,25,022. He has also shown professional income in five months of the financial year 2021-2022 as Rs.1,35,90,353.00.
“It needs to be enquired whether the public servant (respondent) had any official dealing with these organizations in his position as Secretary, DPIIT or the Chairman, FMC.
“In view of the above facts and circumstances, we cannot be a mute spectator to these allegations relating to corruption which should be dealt with strictly. More so when substantial parts of information furnished by the complainant have been admitted by the public servant (respondent) in his affidavits. We, therefore, refer the matter to Enforcement Directorate (ED) along with all papers relating to this complaint. Director, Enforcement Directorate is directed to make enquiries in regard to the valuation of the property viz. E-72, Greater Kailash, Part-II, acquired by the public servant (respondent) and co-owners/ owners of other floors. ED should also enquire whether there was any conflict of interest in terms of remuneration received by the public servant (respondent) and/ or his relatives.
During this enquiry, it may also be ascertained whether the public servant (respondent) was required to inform relevant authority, the cost of redevelopment of the property bought by him in GK-II and whether the appropriate authority was informed or not. Necessary action in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws/regulations may be taken by ED in this matter.”