)
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has disclosed what the health ministry did not want to before the Delhi High Court and has kept away from Parliament.
It has given a status report on the pending corruption and vigilance investigations at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
But, the health ministry has told the court it prefers not to disclose the details, as it would hamper the investigation. It had said the ministry would provide the details, if the court persisted.
CVC’s report has revealed many investigations were stuck, pending action by the health ministry. Cases involving an IAS officer of the Himachal Pradesh cadre, Vineet Chaudhary, have been awaiting instructions for months from Health Minister J P Nadda.
The documents emerged in a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation before the high court. The petitioners had pleaded Nadda should recuse himself from all pending corruption investigations as minister in-charge because he had advocated a halt to all such inquiries before he became the health minister and has vested interests. The petitioners wanted swift investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and CVC, and also a CBI probe into who all tried to stall the corruption probes, as files had disappeared from AIIMS.
The court had last issued notices to Nadda in his personal capacity, the health ministry, the CVC and the CBI. The parties have now responded separately.
The CVC affidavit has revealed specific details and status of the 21 corruption cases.
Cases relating to allegations of corruption and financial irregularities against Chaudhary, who had worked under Nadda for several years in the state government, have been pending action for months, the documents show.
The cases pertain to the period when Chaudhary was the deputy director of AIIMS. Chaudhary is being investigated for illegal gratification, financial loss to the government, irregularities in construction works at AIIMS, treatment of his dog in the cancer ward and irregularities in appointment of consultants. Though his chargesheet was approved by previous health ministers, CVC referred the cases back to Nadda for action, claiming the previous approvals came with health ministers acting only as president of AIIMS and not as minister. One set of cases of Chaudhury were referred back to the ministry in November 2014 and have been pending at least since February 2015. Another has been pending since September 2014.
The health ministry is yet to reply to an unstarred question of November 28, 2014, in the Lok Sabha, which had sought the status of the corruption cases at AIIMS. The ministry said it was still collecting information. Records reviewed by Business Standard show the relevant information was collected from CVC and CBI and sent to the health ministry. This had happened before the date of the question in the Lok Sabha.
Before becoming the health minister, Nadda had, as a Member of Parliament, written to the then health minister, Harsh Vardhan, asking that all investigations in to corruption at AIIMS be halted and reviewed by the minister personally. He had also wanted the then chief vigilance officer of AIIMS, Sanjiv Chaturvedi, removed as his posting did not have the CVC approval. He also suggested a specific individual be appointed as the CVO. Subsequently, Chaturvedi was transferred. Nadda later became the health minister.
Nadda has in his personal affidavit defended his right to write such pleadings as a Member of Parliament. He said he was not influencing the investigations. The health ministry said in its affidavit removal of Chaturvedi as CVO has not delayed any investigation.
Neither Nadda nor the health ministry replied to a detailed questionnaire sent by Business Standard on April 27, despite repeated reminders.
Both have claimed in their affidavits the petition before the court was a case pertaining to Chaturvedi’s service and not a public interest litigation, and should therefore be dismissed. The court had, on the pleas of the petitioner, also made Chaturvedi a respondent in the case.
The ministry and the minister claimed Chaturvedi was removed as the CVO, as he had been appointed without the CVC approval. The health ministry said at one stage an “error crept in” when the prime minister’s office referred to Chaturvedi’s posting as CVO though no such post existed; Chaturvedi was posted only as deputy secretary of AIIMS and was given the additional post of CVO. The health ministry said the parliamentary standing committee and even its own secretary and other officials had erroneously put on record that Chaturvedi’s appointment as CVO of AIIMS was legal. The health ministry also said CVC referred to Chaturvedi as CVO on its website only for public consumption.
But CVC, CBI, health ministry and health ministers have repeatedly acted upon the recommendations of Chaturvedi as CVO and corresponded with him to take action in more than two dozen corruption cases at AIIMS. They had done so during both United Progressive Alliance and NDA governments.
The minister and the health ministry have claimed that the missing file of the government did not pertain to the posting of the CVO but only to the post of the deputy secretary of AIIMS. They also said Chaturvedi stood to gain the most from the disappearance of the file. Both did not mention that the previous health minister, Vardhan, had approved a chargesheet against Chaudhury for the disappearance of the file. An FIR was also filed in the matter.
The ministry records and the First Information Report note that the file was for the appointment of CVO of AIIMS.
A government correspondence, now with the court, show after Chaturvedi’s removal, the ministry appointed officials of the health ministry on ad-hoc basis as the CVO for six months without CVC approval. The health ministry subsequently sought CVC’s approval to appoint one of its three joint secretaries as the CVO. But regulations require the CVO to be an officer working in AIIMS. His name should be forwarded by the director of AIIMS, as part of a panel, through the health ministry to CVC. But CVC has approved a joint secretary of the health ministry reporting to the health minister as the anti-graft officer of the premier health centre.
