Two years ago, faced with a deluge of allegations and criticism, the government was forced to order an unprecedented audit by the CAG, the first ever for a spy agency in India.
Dragged into the Supreme Court, India’s sole technical spy agency, NTRO had to file a detailed status report in court on the measures they have taken after the CAG pulled them up for a series of “illegal” and procedural lapses.
Two years ago, faced with a deluge of allegations and criticism, the government was forced to order an unprecedented audit by the CAG, the first ever for a spy agency in India. The CAG report found several major lapses where people were recruited illegally, procedures or purchases were found to have been violated and senior officers had ‘misused’ their official position on several occasions.
The CAG report was never presented in Parliament, forcing a former joint secretary in NTRO, VK Mittal, to approach the Delhi high court seeking its disclosure. The high court had then ruled that the audit report be dealt as per procedure. Not satisfied, Mittal has now approached the apex court by filing a special leave petition (SLP).
Sources told DNA that they had listed the findings of a single-man committee - then headed by NTRO’s chairman PV Kumar - into some of the allegations. However, the bulk of the report focused on the inquiry conducted by Jaijeet Singh, currently posted as a joint secretary in NTRO, who examined the major findings of the CAG report as a part of a detailed departmental inquiry.
According to sources, several lapses have been found against the former chairman of NTRO, KVS Prasad Rao, on several procurement and recruitment-related procedures. Some questions have also been raised against MS Vijayraghavan, who is currently posted as a senior adviser with NTRO. Singh has found cases of irregularities in at least 15 recruitment cases but said some of them were merely ‘procedural’.
The case was heard by Justices HL Dattu and CK Prasad, who had earlier asked for it last year. Haren Raval informed the court that he had “flagged its important portions on which action has been taken.” The case will be heard on April 9.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}