The ex-Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS today accused Union Health Minister J P Nadda of conniving with the accused in several corruption matters in connection with the medical institution by allegedly sitting over the chargesheets and CBI reports against the individuals involved.
Ex-Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of AIIMS, Sanjeev Chaturvedi, made the accusation in an affidavit filed before Delhi High Court in a PIL by an NGO seeking recusal of Nadda from acting as a disciplinary authority, alleging that he had "unfettered powers to influence the course of proceedings in all the corruption cases".
The PIL by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) has also sought a CBI probe into various graft cases in AIIMS.
Nadda had earlier told the high court that the PIL was "actuated by ulterior motive" to gain political mileage and "malign" the government's image.
He had, in his reply to the PIL before a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini, refuted allegations that Chaturvedi was removed from the post as he was conducting a probe in several corruption cases related to various malpractices in the premier hospital.
He also refuted, as false and frivolous, the allegation that as a result of Chaturvedi's removal, the graft cases involving officials close to the minister are being reviewed and have slowed down.
Chaturvedi has claimed in his affidavit that the previous Health Minister Dr Harshvardhan as well as CBI had recommended major penalty proceedings against some AIIMS officials in connection with alleged irregularities in construction of port-a-cabins at Jhajjar campus of the institute but no action has been taken till date.
He said that he came to know about the recommendations through Right to Information queries and contended that the lack of action "reflects the nexus" between the accused and Nadda.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) in its reply had also termed as "incorrect" that after Chaturvedi's removal as CVO, no vigilance office is functioning at AIIMS as a Joint Secretary rank official has been assigned charge of the post.
AIIMS, on its part, had said the PIL has been filed in "personal interest" of the NGO and with a view to damaging the reputation of the institute.
(Reopen LGD28)
In his affidavit, Chaturvedi has said that "as per the information received under RTI Act on November 5, from the vigilance wing of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, CBI submitted a self-contained note in December 2014 to respondent 4 (CVO, Health Ministry).
"This report (note) had recommended departmental action against five AIIMS officials for providing misleading information to the then President AIIMS in facilitating illegal extension of the then Superintendent Engineer B S Anand.
"However, as per the said information, even after one year of submission of the report, there has not been any action against the five officials by the Health Ministry led by J P Nadda."
The affidavit also states that on the same charges, "the then Union Health Minister and President AIIMS Dr Harshvardhan had already recommended major penalty proceedings against one of the five officials-Vineet Chaudhary-in August 2014 which is again lying with the Health Ministry for past one year."
"This clearly reflects the nexus of the Health Minister with Vineet and other accused, in sitting over approved departmental chargesheets as well as CBI reports against them," it added.
Chaturvedi, who is currently a Deputy Secretary in AIIMS, has also alleged "shoddy investigation" by CBI, saying the agency expressed inability to give any finding on the issue of irregularities on the ground that AIIMS did not provide any records.
"This is a very ridiculous argument as CBI has all the police powers to search and seize/recover the said documents. If this excuse taken by CBI is allowed, criminal investigation into corruption cases would turn into a farce," he said.
He has also alleged that this "clearly shows that CBI has deliberately omitted key facts in its investigation reports to save the influential accused".
The PIL has contended Chaturvedi started initiating action in corruption cases related to various malpractices including "supply of dubious medicines by a private chemist shop, having influential political nexus, role of middlemen in making fake out-patient department (OPD) cards".
It has alleged that "in many cases, probe has been slowed down" relating to serious irregularities including "wastage in purchase of surgery equipment and other medical items, use of fake propriety certificates in purchases, irregularities in recruitment, in computerisation work, breach of confidentiality in exam process, unauthorised foreign visit of senior faculty members in violation of MCI regulations".
