HC apprised of probe into diversion of funds

Updated - March 13, 2015 05:43 am IST

Published - March 13, 2015 12:00 am IST - MADURAI:

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) informed the Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday that it was probing into alleged diversion of funds to the tune of Rs.5.35 crore by Tuticorin district panchayat between the financial years 2006-07 and 2009-10.

In a counter affidavit filed in reply to a public interest litigation petition seeking a police probe into the issue, the DVAC officials stated that the office of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Secretary had received a complaint with regard to diversion of funds as early as on August 22, 2011.

The complaint made by a resident of Tuticorin taluk stated that the money allotted for panchayat works had been diverted to Water Resources Organisation of the Public Works Department “with a corrupt motive” and the diverted funds had been utilised to execute work of poor quality.

Acting on the instructions of the Secretary, the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj directed Additional Director K. Rajamani to enquire into the issue. Accordingly, Mr. Rajamani submitted a report on August 10, 2012, after making a field visit and perusing the official records.

The enquiry report stated that the PWD officials who executed the work had caused a loss of more than Rs.2 crore to the government by committing various malpractices in execution of the work and that the then District Panchayat Chairman N. Chinnadurai was also responsible for the loss.

After receiving the report, the Commissioner recommended a detailed enquiry by the DVAC. The task was given to a Deputy Superintendent of Police who collected voluminous records and cross checked them with the assistance of an independent civil engineer.

Stating that a detailed enquiry, a pre-requisite for registration of a First Information Report, was already under way, the DVAC claimed that there was no necessity for the court to order a police probe as sought by the PIL petitioner M. Ganesan, a resident of Tuticorin, through his counsel W. Peter Ramesh Kumar.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.