The recent bungalow spat between the Lokayukta and the state government is reportedly an effort to demean the office of the Ombudsman on lines of Gujarat government which during Narendra Modi's regime did not deem it proper to appoint a Lokayukta.
The circumstances and also the apprehension of Lokayukta officials indicated that the government was either trying to use pressure tactics on the Ombudsman or was not allowing his office to carry out probe into corruption charges, in which even ministers and senior officials were under the scanner.
Sources said that despite the Lokayukta enjoying all protocols like the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the Estate department cancelled his allotment of Type-VI bungalow in Gautampalli just as the state government wanted to pressure the anti-graft agency.
The Lokayukta is reportedly making an enquiry into a matter related to Estate department, beside probing charges against senior officials and even ministers of Yogi government.
Though the High Court has already cancelled the Estate department’s orders and even passed strictures against it, the Ombudsman's office laid bare its apprehension of the government using pressure tactics. "We can’t rule out the possibility of pressure tactics being used in the bungalow allotment order. But we would like to make it clear that we are not working under any pressure and will not bow to any in the future,” asserted secretary at Lokayukta office Pawan Kumar Upadhyay. Upadhyay said this during a joint press conference with chief investigating officer Rakesh Kumar in Lucknow on Monday afternoon.
Upadhyay, however, refused to reveal anything further saying that the law did not permit them to reveal investigation or any other details.
The tangential inference though was that the present government was attempting to make the Lokayukta office look like a 'defunct’ organisation.
"Several of our demands regarding staff crunch or absence of basic facilities were pending with the government for long and the same is creating hindrance in probe as well as early disposal of matters,” confirmed Upadhyay. "At present, the Lokayukta office has just three investigating officers and so we demanded to increase the number to at least six, but our demand went unheard," he added.
Similarly, the Lokayukta office demanded the posting of an IG rank officer, one DIG, 3 SP rank, 10 Deputy SPs and 25 constables (on deputation) along with their clerical staff but nothing was done in this regard.
Even at present, the three investigating officers posted in Lokayukta office have no clerical or other staff or even vehicles and facilities for visiting any place for investigation.
Upadhyay said that seeing sensitive matters were monitored by Lokayukta office, they also asked for personal security guard to senior officials but that demand was also not fulfilled so far.
Interestingly, in a letter to the state government, the Lokayukta office made it clear that the behaviour of the government towards their demands was adversely affecting their working.
Earlier, Upadhaya informed that how a Lucknow division bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed an order of the government ordering change in the official accommodation of the Lokayukta and passed the verdict observing critical views on the functioning of the state government officials.
The court also made observation against the government for ignoring suggestions of Advocate General in the matter and even asked Chief Secretary to apprise the highest functionary of the state about the way officials and departments were functioning. The order was passed by a division bench, comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Arora and Ranjan Roy, on December 21 last.
The court also made critical remarks on the bureaucracy by commenting: "In fact, the record reveals that a note was put up for approval of Principal Secretary in this matter, who, it appears, did not even bother to apprise himself of statutory provisions governing the conditions of service of the office of Lokayukta. Treating it as a routine matter, as if, the Lokayukta was any other government servant, he put his signatures thereon without any query whatsoever. We do not appreciate such a casual attitude towards such a high functionary of the state."