Panel Indicts Sena Minister, Govt To Order Fresh Probe

Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi yesterday said the government would immediately institute a fresh inquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act against Shiv Sena minister Shashikant Sutar following his indictment by Justice S W Puranik committee for accumulating property through inappropriate means.

Reading out a gist of the 68-page report of the committee, instituted by the state government to probe corruption charges against the two ministers Sutar and Mahadev Shivankar of the BJP in both the houses of the legislature, Joshi said the enquiry would be headed by a retired High Court judge.

The Puranik committee exonerated Shivankar of the corruption charges.

Joshi said he had rejected the resignation of Shivankar following his exoneration by the committee but he was non-committal on restoring the irrigation portfolio back to him when asked by reporters later.

Sutar, making a statement in both houses after Joshis statement, said he had tendered his resignation from the cabinet yesterday morning and expressed his preparedness to face any sort of enquiry to face his innocence.

The committee, instituted by the government on November 27, 1996, following an indefinite fast undertaken by anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, got two extentions and submitted its report to Joshi on March 29, 1997.

Both Sutar and Shivankar had tendered their resignations after the launch of the enquiry but they were only divested of their respective portfolios of agriculture and irrigation and retained as ministers without portfolios.

Joshi said the committee found that Sutar accumulated property through inappropriate and irregular means after he became the minister in the Sena-BJP government and he could not give satisfactory explanation to the committee about the source for this accumulation.

The committee came to the conclusion that there was substance in charges of irregularities in transfers of officers ordered by Sutar, Joshi said.

The committee termed as undignified Sutars misuse of several government vehicles.

It also expressed its displeasure over Sutar accepting a costly gift of Maruti Esteem by stating that it was disgraceful and inappropriate for a minister or a representative of people to accept such gifts.

The committee could not find any evidence regarding three more complaints against Sutar.

The committee clarified in its report that its findings were based on prima facie evidence and were of primary nature and recommended that it would be fair and just for the government to institute a fresh enquiry against Sutar.