Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 24 Jan: Congress spokesperson Abhinav Thapar today that the Home-Guards Uniform scam is not limited to financial irregularities but also amounts to a serious violation of constitutional procedures, service rules and criminal laws. He said the suspension of the Deputy Commandant itself is proof that the CM has accepted the existence of the scam.
Thapar said the case is not one of mere symbolic suspension but involves clear violations of government procurement rules, the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017, the Fiscal Responsibility Act and several provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He asserted that in such serious matters, suspension is inadequate and that registration of an FIR, investigation into assets and a criminal probe by an independent agency are mandatory.
Thapar alleged that the government has deliberately limited the entire case to a single officer, whereas the tender committee, accounts officials, officers granting financial approval and the departmental secretary are all legally accountable in the procurement process. Suspending just one officer, he claimed is a classic administrative tactic to shield the real beneficiaries of the scam.
Citing the rates that have surfaced, Thapar said sticks priced at Rs 130 were purchased for Rs 375, shoes worth Rs 500 for Rs 1,500, trousers and shirts costing Rs 1,200 for Rs 3,000 and jackets priced at Rs 500 for Rs 1,580. These figures, he said, are not linked to inflation but criminal evidence of deliberate siphoning of public funds, attracting provisions of criminal breach of trust, cheating and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He further questioned why the government has not disclosed the identity of the supplier, the basis of the tender, who approved the rates and, on whose orders, payments were made. Until these facts are made public, he said, it is evident that the government is following a policy of organised protection rather than transparency. Thapar said that had the government been honest, it would have ordered an FIR and a judicial inquiry instead of making a lower-rung officer a scapegoat, alleging that the state is now witnessing a model of state-sponsored administrative loot.
