Rajasthan High Court Criticizes ACB DIG Over Alleged Inaction in IT Department Corruption Cases
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday strongly reprimanded Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Deputy Inspector General Anand Sharma for alleged failure to act on complaints of irregularities amounting to "thousands of crores" in the state's Information Technology and Communication Department. The court expressed concern that the inaction "gives an impression that you are shielding the accused."
Court Issues Stern Warning and Two-Week Deadline
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed Sharma to take effective measures within two weeks. The judge issued a clear warning that "continued inaction could invite proceedings against him." During the hearing, Sharma appeared before the court and requested additional time for investigation. However, Justice Jain emphasized that sufficient opportunity had already been provided and questioned why no concrete action had been initiated despite previous directives.
Petitioner's Allegations of Selective Enforcement
Advocate Poonam Chand Bhandari, representing petitioner TN Sharma, presented detailed arguments before the court. He stated that despite court orders dated September 6, 2024, which directed an inquiry into tender-related matters, the ACB had failed to initiate meaningful investigations into 27 documented complaints. "No meaningful investigation was initiated in any of the cases," Bhandari asserted.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted what he described as a pattern of selective enforcement within the ACB. "It is seen that ACB acts swiftly against lower-level officials such as clerks and constables; it hesitates to proceed against senior officers," Bhandari argued. He presented a specific case where documents were allegedly manipulated using whitener to fraudulently extend work orders, yet no First Information Report had been registered.
ACB's Response and Judicial Scrutiny
When questioned by the court about whether the complaints disclosed cognizable offenses and whether preliminary inquiries had been conducted, Sharma responded that there had been telephonic discussions and that more time was required for proper investigation. The court found this response inadequate and indicative of reluctance at higher administrative levels to take decisive action against potential corruption.
Court's Final Directions and Monitoring Mechanism
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to place on record concrete steps taken by March 9, 2025. The bench clarified that additional time would only be considered if substantive progress in the investigations could be demonstrated. This directive establishes a clear monitoring mechanism to ensure accountability and prevent further delays in addressing the serious allegations of corruption within the state's IT infrastructure projects.
The court's intervention highlights growing judicial concern about corruption in government departments and the need for anti-corruption agencies to demonstrate impartiality and effectiveness regardless of the seniority of those under investigation.
