LG allowed IAS officers to move HC against House: AAP
NEW DELHI: The Aam Aadmi Party on Sunday said that a reply to an RTI query showed that Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal gave permissions to Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash and another IAS officer to file cases in the Delhi High Court against the Delhi Assembly.
"The RTI replies also revealed that huge payments to the advocates, who defended these IAS officers in the corruption cases were made from the government exchequer on LG's instructions," said AAP MLA and chief spokesperson Saurabh Bharadwaj on Saturday.
The issue was highlighted a day after the high court ordered the Chief Secretary to be present in front of Petitions Committee of the Delhi Assembly, else he would be an issued a contempt of court notice.
Last year between June and July, the Petitions Committee had visited more than one hundred drains across the Capital, which come under the three Municipal Corporations and the Public Works Department (PWD).
The Committee members were accompanied by top officers of PWD and the MCDs during the surprise field visits.
"It was found that most of the reports related to desilting submitted by MCDs and PWD to the Assembly Committee, as well as the Delhi High Court, were fabricated and were far from reality.
"The drains, which were shown to be as 100 per cent de-silted and cleaned, were found overflowing with filth and garbage. The photographs were attached as part of the report below," said Bharadwaj.
The Greater Kailash MLA also said that the Committee had recommended an inquiry by the Vigilance Department and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) into this "deep-rooted corruption".
"The LG, who heads the ACB and the Vigilance Department, did not even care to initiate the enquiry. The Committee had also recommended action against the then PWD Secretary Ashwani Kumar. But the LG chose not to take any action on the officer," he said.
He added that instead of punishing the officer, the Central government rewarded Kumar by promoting him to Chief Secretary of Puducherry.
There were serious recommendations from the Committee, later adopted by the Assembly, for which the Chief Secretary has to ensure compliance.
However, in spite of the elected government agreeing to implement the recommendations, the LG office openly helped the officers to not implement the recommendations.
"The LG office even granted permission to these officers and even paid advocates fee to challenge the report of the Petitions Committee in the high court. Later, the case was disposed but no action has been initiated by the Chief Secretary and the LG," said Bharadwaj.
