All the details relating to suspension of Additional DGP A.B. Venkateshwara Rao were communicated to the Centre on this February 12, the Andhra Pradesh government said in an affidavit filed in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) here on Monday.
The provisions of the law under which action was initiated against Mr. Rao was informed to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs through e-mail and speed post service, the affidavit filed by General Administration Directorate deputy secretary J. Venkata Murali stated. Further a comprehensive report was sent to the Centre on February 19 on the matter.
Since the Crime Investigation Department (CID) was already conducting a probe into procurement of unmanned aerial vehicle drones involving Mr. Rao, no stay order can be granted on Mr. Rao’s suspension order, the affidavit said. The petition filed by the ADGP following his suspension came up for hearing on Monday before a bench of the CAT comprising Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and member B.V. Sudhakar.
The petitioner’s counsel G. Vidya Sagar contended the disciplinary action and the suspension order were not in conformity with the All India Service Rules. High Court senior counsel and former Advocate General D. Prakash Reddy, appearing for AP government, said Mr. Rao had not challenged the rules under which he was suspended.
However, the CAT bench consented to amend the petition after the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to do so. In the affidavit filed by the AP GAD, it was stated that Mr. Rao’s action were conducive to damage the interests of the State in the procurement of drones. The tender was finalised to be given to a company headed by Mr. Rao’s son, the affidavit stated.
This amounted to violation of the guidelines and rules of the tender. The DGP found fault with finalisation of tenders in this regard and rejected the same. The affidavit stated that, however, Mr. Rao tried to procure the drones from the same company.
On learning this, the government ordered for a preliminary inquiry into the matter. On receipt of the preliminary report, disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Rao resulting in his suspension, the government contended. The petitioner’s counsel said that none came forward to file tenders to procure drones when State Trading Corporation issued notification twice.
Mr. Rao attended a meeting relating to procurement of drones in the capacity as member of the Tenders Committee. Except this, he had no role in procuring the equipment, the counsel said. The matter was posted to March 6 for next hearing.
