The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) is reportedly delaying the implementation of a High Court order directing to do away with its police Vigilance wing. The court order gains significance in the wake of a row which has erupted over the objection raised by State Police Chief T.P. Senkumar against appointing a Superintendent of Police, against whom a Vigilance inquiry is pending, to head the Devaswom Vigilance wing.
Revenue loss
Board sources told The Hindu here that the Devaswom Ombudsman, during the tenure of M. Rajagopalan Nair as president, had expressed reservations about the efficacy of the Vigilance wing. For, the board officials had been complaining time and again that despite spending a huge sum, nearly Rs.1.5 crore a year, the Vigilance wing had not been so successful in curbing corrupt practices and plugging revenue loss. The Vigilance wing could not initiate any action or suggest feasible means to thwart the recurring instances of employees smuggling out money and valuables from the `kanikka’ (offerings) counting room at Sabarimala. Same was true in the cases of under-reporting of daily collection at temples under the board.
Cases of swindling lakhs of rupees from the daily collection in major temples could not be contained. The Vigilance wing could do precious little in preventing such instances too. It could not clamp down on the corrupt practices in the purchase of huge quantities of goods, including jaggery, ghee, and such others, for making ‘prasadam’ in Sabarimala. TDB personnel involved in cases of under-reporting of revenue collection from the sale of ‘prasadam’ and major procedural lapses in making payments often escaped unscathed for want of diligence of the Vigilance wing.
Internal wing
It was in this context that the Ombudsman expressed doubts about the relevance of the police Vigilance wing. It was also proposed to form an internal Vigilance wing headed by Devaswom assistant commissioners to plug the loopholes. Police officers deputed to man the Vigilance wing could not acquaint themselves with the board’s accounting system and hence failed to detect the revenue loss.
