Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath ordered a Vigilance enquiry against senior IAS officer Amit Ghosh for alleged financial irregularities in awarding tenders while being posted as Managing Director of UPSIDC.
Ghosh was posted as MD, UPSIDC on August 2, 2016 by the then Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and was transferred out by the present government on April 14, 2017. It has been over a month and a half that he has been on the waiting list awaiting any posting.
Special Secretary to Chief Minister Dr Adarsh Singh issued an order on May 29 asking for a Vigilance probe into the matter. The Vigilance Establishment has been asked to complete the probe in 15 days.
Incidentally, the probe was ordered on the complaint of Chief Engineer of UPSIDC Arun Mishra, who himself is facing a CBI probe for corruption.
A senior official told ‘The Pioneer’ on Friday that the CM was told about embezzlement to the tune of Rs 1100 crore in awarding tenders in Trans-Ganga City and Saraswati Hi-tech City projects of Allahabad.
“The allegations against Ghosh is that he carried out tendering of projects around Rs 1100 crore. Of the amount, tenders worth Rs 600 were awarded in Trans-Ganga City and Saraswati Hi- Tech City for concrete road in Allahabad,” he said.
The official said that prima facie it seemed that the officer had flouted rules and proposed Action Plan for 2016-17 fiscal. “The truth will come out only after a threadbare probe. The Vigilance department has been asked to complete the enquiry in a fortnight’s time,” he said.
Meanwhile, questioning the Vigilance enquiry against the IAS officer, Congress spokesman Krishna Kant Pandey said that the BJP government acted on a complaint of a corrupt Chief Engineer of UPSIDC, who was himself facing a CBI probe for corruption.
“This is amazing that a man who is neck deep in corruption has lodged a complaint against his own former MD and the government acted in a jiffy ordering a CBI probe,” Paney said in a statement issued in lucknow on Friday.
The Congress spokesman said that if the MD had earned money through unscrupulous means then action should be taken against him but it should have been better had the government acted on a complaint of a person with clean image. “The complaint from a tainted person could be an act of vendetta,” the Congress spokesman said.