Premium
This is an archive article published on August 18, 2003

Forget CBI, Maya orders dept probe against secy

The Taj Heritage Corridor controversy is getting murkier with the Uttar Pradesh government now ordering a departmental inquiry against suspe...

.

The Taj Heritage Corridor controversy is getting murkier with the Uttar Pradesh government now ordering a departmental inquiry against suspended principal secretary (environment) R.K. Sharma on the plea that he was responsible for giving the go-ahead to the project.

The eight-page notice detailing the nature of the inquiry was put up at Sharma’s Dalibagh residence in Lucknow late on Saturday night and the suspended officer has been asked to come out with a reply to the notice within 15 days or the government would be forced to take action against him. Sharma had alleged a few days ago that the chief secretary was in the know too.

‘‘I am sending my reply to the appointments secretary because ordering of an inquiry against an IAS official without appointment of an inquiry officer makes no sense. In this case, they have slapped a departmental inquiry against me without appointing the inquiry officer which is in violation of the All India Service rule,’’ Sharma told The Indian Express from New Delhi.

Story continues below this ad

Sharma said he would also be writing in that the inquiry officer should be an official senior to the present chief secretary D.S. Bagga, independent of his clout and outside the control of the CS. ‘‘The CS (Bagga) himself is involved in the issue and it is he who pressured me to speed up the proposal so that the construction could start soon,’’ he alleged.

The ordering of an inquiry at a time when the apex court is set to hear the case on August 21 is being termed as the government’s pressure-building tactics because Sharma was being interrogated by the CBI a few days ago for its interim report. ‘‘The possibility cannot be ruled out,’’ said Sharma.

He was confident that the departmental inquiry ordered by the government would not hold water as neither an inquiry officer has been appointed nor any evidence given ‘‘that can prove that I was responsible for getting the work started there’’.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement