The Madras high court has sharply criticized the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), stating it functions "only for namesake" by registering about 100 cases a year merely "to show that they are functioning." The observation came while the court ordered a special investigation team (SIT) to probe a dispute over cash recovered from a fire and rescue services office.
Background of the Case
Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing a petition from G Senthilkumar, a fire service employee and the second accused in a DVAC case, who sought transfer of the investigation. Senthilkumar alleged that ₹2.25 lakh recovered during a surprise check at the Tirunelveli office of Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services Saravana Babu had been planted. He claimed it was part of a conspiracy to retaliate against Babu for an earlier complaint that led to a forged fire licence case.
CCTV Evidence Presented
To support his claim, the petitioner relied on CCTV footage from a house opposite the office. The footage, played before the court, showed a person arriving at the office around midnight carrying a parcel, entering the premises using a key, and later leaving without it. Recording its findings, the court said, "This circumstance lends support to the allegation that some material may have been brought into the office before the surprise check."
Court's Directive for SIT
The court noted that a separate FIR had already been registered over the alleged midnight entry and that several people had been implicated. Holding that the matter required an independent inquiry, the court directed the Director General of Police to constitute an SIT headed by DIG Santhosh Hadimani, Salem range. The SIT will investigate both cases, including allegations against officials of the fire and rescue services department and the DVAC, and submit a status report by October 7.
Emphasis on Fair Investigation
"The investigation must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair," the court said, adding that only an inquiry free from departmental influence would inspire confidence and bring the truth on record. The court's remarks highlight concerns over the DVAC's effectiveness, as it registers around 100 cases annually, which the court deemed insufficient for a functioning anti-corruption body.
