A Delhi court on Monday (August 4) accepted a closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Public Works Department (PWD) Minister Satyendar Jain relating to alleged irregularities in hiring in the Department. This was one of the first major corruption cases filed against any senior leader of the AAP. In its closure report, the CBI, after carrying out investigations for almost four years, said that it had found “no criminal activity or wrongful loss to the government” in the case. Accepting the report, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue court who was hearing the case said: “…When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the government exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or criminal conspiracy is established.” What was the case against Satyendar Jain? The case was related to alleged corruption in the hiring of a 17-member creative team for the PWD for various projects. An FIR was registered on May 29, 2019 after a complaint by the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance, which alleged that professionals were engaged in the PWD in violation of rules, and that payments were made from unrelated project funds. The complaint said that the outsourcing of professionals for PWD projects was “allegedly irregular and lacked proper approvals from the relevant Finance Department”. The hiring “bypassed standard recruitment procedures”, and expenses were charged to unrelated projects, it said. The main accusation was that Jain and PWD officials had ignored standard hiring practices followed by the government, altered the scope of work, and manipulated the process to favour an agency named M/s Soni Detective & Allied Services Private Limited. After the FIR was registered, the CBI examined various aspects relating to the hiring such as the justification and need for hiring these professionals, the transparency (or lack of it) behind the recruitment process, approvals and use of project funds, whether any personal gain was involved, and whether legal and procedural norms were followed. And what did the investigation find? Following the investigation, the CBI concluded that the need to hire professionals was justified. It found that the hiring process had begun with an advertisement that attracted 1,700 applications for the jobs, and that the selections were based on merit. Those who were hired were paid between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1.95 lakh per month, which the CBI said was “justified remuneration” that “aligned with the regular earnings” of other PWD architects. The CBI had also stated that the hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs and that no payments beyond approved limits had been made. “The total investigation found no criminal activity or wrongful loss to the government… No evidence of quid pro quo or conspiracy has emerged, and the acts of public servants do not constitute fraudulent conduct,” it said. The CBI also said that the agency was hired through a transparent tender advertised in newspapers, and no complaints of irregularities were received from the losing bidder. The CBI investigation concluded that the key reasons for requiring professionals stemmed from a note written by officers to the Minister back in September 2015, in which they had flagged the absence of in-house expertise and a large number of vacancies. Also, several key infrastructure projects such as smart schools, hospitals, clinics, and road redesigns were pending. The CBI noted that at the time the hirings took place, there were close to 50% vacancies in the posts of architects, and major infrastructure projects had to be executed in a time-bound manner by the Delhi government. The “highly qualified candidates” who were hired managed 82 projects, including mohalla clinics, flyovers and elevated corridors, and anganwadis, the CBI said. The CBI concluded that there were no irregularities in recruitment, and no one had made any pecuniary gains. What other cases does Jain face? Jain is facing two other cases: one relating to alleged disproportionate assets, another relating to alleged corruption in a Rs 571 crore project to install CCTV cameras in Delhi. DA CASE: Jain is accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of approximately Rs 1.62 crore between February 14, 2015 and May 31, 2017 while functioning as a public servant. CCTV CASE: In March this year, the Delhi government’s Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) booked Jain for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 7 crore to waive a penalty of Rs 16 crore imposed on Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) which was installing CCTVs cameras in Delhi. Both cases are being heard in Delhi's Rouse Avenue court. Charges are yet to be framed in either of the two cases.
