Gyanesh Kumar Bribery Allegations: VACB Inquiry Begins
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has received directions from the Kerala Home Department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. This is against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of taking bribes worth Rs 2 crore for clearing public works payments in the year 2006. A new complaint from a contractor from Kollam has brought these allegations to light again.
The matter is related to the alleged suicide of Lee See Been, an engineer from Malaysia, in November 2005. Lee was involved in a road project executed through the Indo-Malaysian joint venture PATI-BEL.
What Is The Allegation Against Gyanesh Kumar?
Sajan, a contractor who claims to have worked closely with Lee on the project, alleged that Gyanesh Kumar, who was the Public Works Department (PWD) secretary of Kerala at that time, demanded a bribe of Rs 2 crore for clearing payments for the project.
Sajan claimed that the delays in payments led to problems for Lee in making payments to local contractors and vendors. Also, that he was informed about the demand for bribes by Lee and the suicide note made references to Kumar.
It is said that Sajan has promised to provide proof, possibly including access to Lee’s family members, during the investigation.
What made this case reopen?
The new complaint arose as a result of a previous petition by Congress politician Malayankeezhu Venugopal. This was in which he appealed to the Minister of Home Affairs to investigate the matter.
Earlier, the VACB had examined allegations related to road construction projects conducted between 2003 and 2006. However, the investigation was stopped because the agency reported that the accusations could not be substantiated.
Minister Chennithala reported in the Assembly last month that the vigilance proceedings were stopped, stating that all eight cases sent to court in 2012 were recognized as “mistake of fact” by the court itself.
What happens now?
Initially, the VACB will investigate the new allegations and decide whether it is necessary to register an FIR based on the data obtained.
This became trending news today because many people are now wondering what happened to the allegations made back in 2006. Nevertheless, these are still unproven accusations, and they should be verified during the investigation.
