Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The circumstances in which the officer on special duty to the UT Vigilance Department was replaced last fortnight adds yet another dimension to the controversial Engineering Department case. Wranglings within the Vigilance Department over the handling of the case are out in the open. This is bound to have an adverse effect on the investigations, which are at a crucial stage. The case involving former Chief Engineer K.K. Jerath, who was also Secretary of the Engineering Department, has been mired in controversy from the beginning.
Jerath has openly accused the UT Home Secretary, Anuradha Gupta, of malafide actions. However, the charge was found to be baseless both by the Administration and the courts. The fact that Jerath, instead of cooperating with the investigations, absconded, added weight to the charges against him. Yet, the manner in which he was treated after he surrendered, shows either a plain goof-up or clear vendetta on the part of the Vigilance Department. He was sought to be handcuffed and made to sit on a bench. This is in sharp contrast to the manner in which the CBI has all along treated a former secretary of the Administration, an IAS officer, facing serious charges in the UT lottery case. In the Engineering Department case, the OSD was asked to explain the plea for handcuffing of Jerath; his ambiguous reply has only confounded the issue. Further, his stand that his conscious did not allow him to serve in the Vigilance Department in the present state of affairs, is baffling.
On the other hand, the charge by the Adviser to the UT Administrator, Jagdish Sagar, that the OSD had been won over by the accused who are moneyed and influential, is extremely serious. It has also now come out that the Administration had invoked draconian provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act to place certain telephone numbers under "special observation". Although the Telegraph Act allows monitoring of telephones under special circumstances, such as issues of national security and breach of peace, did the circumstances in this particular case of corruption warrant this? Besides Jerath’s telephones, the telephones of some other accused in the corruption case were also placed under observation. Of course, the Adviser has justified the act and stated that the Administration did not use its powers to order tapping of telephones.
Yet, in light of the difference of opinion between the investigating officer and the Chief Vigilance Officer, which has surfaced, the Administrator should intervene and decide whether the case should be handed over to the CBI for investigation. There should be no ambiguity: the guilty should be administered exemplary punishment. The Administrator should order a probe into the charge that the OSD has been won over by the accused. If proved, he should face strict disciplinary action. The legality or otherwise of monitoring of telephones of certain officials and others accused in the corruption case, should also be determined. While efforts to nail the corrupt are commendable, investigations must ensure absence of bias. Meanwhile, one cannot agree more with the Adviser when he says that the press should play the role of an honest watchdog. It should be remembered that watchdogs are not lapdogs.
