PANAJI
The office of the Lokayukta closed a suo motu proceeding the previous Lokayukta had initiated against former Superintendent of Police (Crime) Priyanka Kashyap for failing to register a case of disproportionate assets against then minister in the BJP government Pandurang Madkaikar.
Adv Aires Rodrigues, who was the original complainant, had alleged that Madkaikar via his construction of a palatial bungalow at Old Goa that he said was worth Rs 200 crore, had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.
After no FIR was lodged against Madkaikar despite him filing a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rodrigues approached the Lokayukta accusing the police of acts of corruption.
In his report, the previous Lokayukta Justice P K Misra had found that Kashyap was guilty of “dereliction of duty.”
“Prima facie there has been dereliction in duty by the then SP... the office is directed to initiate a suo motu proceeding against the then SP for gross dereliction of duty so that appropriate recommendation can be made,” Misra decreed.
In response, Kashyap defended herself claiming that she acted as per “established office procedure” and it was never her intention not to register the FIR, rather directions were immediately sought from the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), who is the chief secretary, through proper channel to register the FIR and start the preliminary enquiry in the matter.
“The ACB was bound to obtain orders from the CVO as per the rules of business laid down as per various precedents because the complainant was not just a public servant but who also happened to be a sitting minister for which the Governor is the appointing authority and is also the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction,” Kashyap said in her defence.
She also claimed that she was “one of several officers in the long chain of command beginning from the Police Inspector, DySP, SP, Director (Vigilance), Special Secretary Vigilance, CVO to the Chief Minister but action is proposed to be taken only against her.
“No reasons or grounds are forthcoming as to why the answering respondent has been singled out and greatly prejudiced against for taking action against her,” she said.
The Lokayukta agreed with her contentions.
“Kashyap’s submission that she has been singled out while all others have been left without action has gone unrefuted -- unchallenged. In this background, suo motu cognizance against Kashyap alone is ex facie a judicial cognizance of singling out said officer and impliedly pardoning the rest while letting all others go scot-free,” Justice A N Joshi, the Lokayukta said.
“In the absence of all those erring officers being arrayed and noticed in the initial proceedings, is as if a posthumous laments which transgres propriety and reasonableness apart that it results in undue and avoidable exercise, particularly being extremely belated even at the level of this forum,” Joshi said in his order while ordering that the suo motu proceeding be closed.
