The Madras high court has sharply criticized the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC), stating it was functioning “only for namesake” by registering around 100 cases annually “to show that they are functioning.” The observation came while the court ordered a special investigation team (SIT) probe into a dispute over cash recovered from a fire and rescue services office in Tirunelveli.
Background of the Case
Justice B Pugalendhi was hearing a petition filed by G Senthilkumar, a fire service employee and the second accused in a DVAC case, who sought transfer of the investigation. Senthilkumar claimed 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 as part of a conspiracy. The alleged motive was retaliation against the officer for an earlier complaint that led to a forged fire licence case.
To support his claim, the petitioner relied on CCTV footage from a house opposite the office. The footage was played before the court and 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 Observations and Directions
The court noted that a separate FIR had already been registered over the alleged midnight entry, and several people had been implicated in that case. Holding that the matter required an independent inquiry, the court directed the director general of police to constitute a special investigation team 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.
“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 strong remarks against the DVAC highlight concerns about the agency's effectiveness and credibility.
