The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday issued a notice of motion to Suresh Arora, director, vigilance bureau (VB), Punjab, on a petition seeking contempt-of-court proceedings against him for alleged willful disobedience to the court orders of August last year by not completing an inquiry into alleged disproportionate assets of former Tamil Nadu-cadre IAS officer Gurnihal Singh Pirzada.
The court, while hearing a petition filed by advocate Sarabjit Singh, also directed Arora to submit a status report of the case before January 9, 2015.
The petitioner informed the court that last year, he had filed a petition in the high court, seeking an investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets of Pirzada, "who had managed to resign after collecting wealth of more than Rs 200 crore, which is visible in the form of real estate, by abusing his position as an IAS officer."
The petitioner had alleged that that during his deputation period in Punjab, Pirzada was posted as managing director of the Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Limited Corporation from October 28, 1999, to October 29, 2001. During this period, he formed a company, International Customer Related Management Services (ICRMS), with the purpose of misusing his position and made one Raman Uppal its dummy director.
On this, the high court had on August 31 last year ordered, "…if some irregularity is found in the holdings of the companies… or any link of the respondent No.4 (Pirzada) to those companies for siphoning of funds, as alleged by the petitioner and denied by respondent No.4, it would for the vigilance bureau to look into the matter. Needless to say that if any irregularity is found, action would be taken in accordance with the law."
{{/usCountry}}On this, the high court had on August 31 last year ordered, "…if some irregularity is found in the holdings of the companies… or any link of the respondent No.4 (Pirzada) to those companies for siphoning of funds, as alleged by the petitioner and denied by respondent No.4, it would for the vigilance bureau to look into the matter. Needless to say that if any irregularity is found, action would be taken in accordance with the law."
{{/usCountry}}However, the petitioner informed the court on Tuesday that the state VB had failed to complete the probe, which it had started on September 27 last year. He submitted that he was summoned by the VB and had also submitted huge records to prove his allegations against Pirzada. But "due to his (Pirzada's) influence nothing has happened till date and the matter is pending," the petitioner alleged.
He added that finally, on August 25 this year, he submitted a representation to the Punjab chief secretary for instructions to the VB to complete the probe and follow-up action as per the probe findings.