The Lokpal has disposed of a complaint alleging misuse of official position and irregularities in the collection, administration and handling of the PM CARES Fund, saying that the complainant failed to provide any specific material facts or prima facie evidence for it to order a corruption probe. However, the anti-corruption ombudsman allowed the complainant to file a fresh complaint with “credible” and “verifiable” relevant facts and material.
In an order passed on October 9, seen by HT, a bench headed by Lokpal chairperson justice AM Khanwilkar, said the complaint’s contents do not justify ordering a preliminary inquiry in the matter. It refused to indulge in a “roving or misdirected” inquiry. The anti-corruption body gave the complainant liberty to approach it again with a properly framed complaint containing material facts and particulars of alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The order withheld the names of the complainant and of those associated with the PM CARES Fund for “confidentiality”.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the chairperson (ex-officio) of the PM CARES Fund while Union ministers of defence, home and finance—Rajnath Singh, Amit Shah and Nirmala Sitharaman, respectively—are ex-officio trustees of the Fund.
The complainant had approached the Lokpal in June with allegations that there were irregularities in collection, administration and handling of contributions to the PM CARES Fund, while seeking a probe against the public servants associated with it, use of government machinery, foreign contributions, audit arrangements, etc.
{{/usCountry}}The complainant had approached the Lokpal in June with allegations that there were irregularities in collection, administration and handling of contributions to the PM CARES Fund, while seeking a probe against the public servants associated with it, use of government machinery, foreign contributions, audit arrangements, etc.
{{/usCountry}}Earlier, the Lokpal had, on August 20, asked the complainant to identify the allegations which constitute the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant filed an affidavit the same month providing further details.
The Lokpal, however, ruled on October 9, “...after examining the affidavit read with the relevant portions of the complaint/document relied upon by the complainant, it is not possible to suggest that the contents of the complaint, as filed, are structured appropriately to justify a completely new prayer of the complainant (to initiate action against the named public servants for offence (s) under the prevention of corruption act; ex consequenti to call upon the Lokpal to proceed further, to direct a Preliminary Inquiry in that regard”.
“The direction to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry is not a mechanical matter. That is issued only if the complaint is found to be genuine and refers to credible verifiable facts and particulars prima facie indicative or suggestive of commission of offence (s)..,” the order adds.
Asserting that the complainant’s explanation falls short of the requirements, the Lokpal bench said that “the complainant ought to present a properly drawn complaint containing all the relevant facts and material particulars arranged in sequence, which must mention credible and verifiable and if accepted at its face value, will be indicative of commission of offence (s), so as to persuade the Lokpal to proceed further in the matter”.
The bench observed that the complainant was effectively asking it to examine the documents, identify the relevant facts and draw conclusions about possible offences on its own.
Such an exercise, it said, “would border on indulging in a roving and misdirected inquiry.”
It noted that a fresh complaint, if complete in all respects, “can be considered appropriately by the Lokpal, without being influenced by the previous complaint including this order”.