Delhi HC Dismisses Petition For An Independent Probe In alleged ‘Cash for Contract’ Scam in Assam Rifles [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a Petition demanding an independent probe into the allegations of corruption (‘Cash for Contract’) in the awarding of civil contracts by Assam Rifles.

The inquiry into the allegations was initiated by the force in September, 2014, after a sting operation by the magazine Tehelka had claimed that the Director General, the Additional Director General and the Chief Engineer of the force were receiving bribes for the contracts through a Junior Commissioned Officer.

It had also quoted some alleged contractors, who had claimed that 30 per cent of the cost of a project for the contract “goes straight into the officials’ pockets”.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by Mr. Rampat Singh, who is the Vice President of the Assam Rifles, Ex-Serviceman Welfare Association. Mr. Singh had alleged that the inquiry by the vigilance department was “neither fair nor proper”, as the Director General of the paramilitary force, accused of corruption himself, was also the head of the Department.

“The said sting operation specifically reveals that some Assam Rifles personnel used to take bribes from private contractors at various levels for the smooth passage of tenders, thereby tarnishing the organisation as a whole. The bribes are openly taken by the men in uniform sitting inside their respective offices,” the Petition had stated.

The Respondents, on the other hand, had denied the allegations of a botched inquiry, and had submitted that the status report of the inquiry had been submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time.

Ruling in favor of the Respondents, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva noted that Mr. Singh had not placed any evidence on record in order to substantiate his allegations. The Court, thereafter, opined that the Petitioner had failed to show any locus standi to file the Petition, observing, “If any person indicted in the inquiry were aggrieved, they would be entitled to take appropriate remedies in law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up proxy litigation either at the behest of the contractor who has been blacklisted or the persons indicted by the inquiry.”