Karnataka government's decision to revoke the suspension of the three drug officials will be of no assistance in carrying out the investigations of the Rs. 300 crore drugs scam as the disciplinary action against them has been kept pending. Hence the interrogations have been delayed.
The government has only revoked the suspension of the officials and this is not sufficient. If the truth has to be revealed the government has to withdraw any disciplinary action against them only then would the Lok Ayukta, the investigation arm of the government of Karnataka will be able to conduct the investigation, Justice N Venkatachala Lok Ayukta told Pharmabiz.com.
He said that the officials might be under pressure not to divulge the truth. If the government holds back the disciplinary action these officials might never reveal the truth fearing punishment, he said. A decision on resuming investigation would be taken only after conducting another hearing on April 16, 2003.
The three officers of the drugs department, MN Ramamurthy, D Kranti Kumar, ad H Srinivas have been instructed to appear before the Lok Ayukta.
After the Lok Ayukta took exception to the suspension of the officers, it was revoked. Now that we have sought withdrawal of disciplinary action against them the Lok Ayukta will hear the government reaction.
The Lok Ayukta had conducted a raid on the drugs control office on March 26, 2003. The three officials had come forward to assist the Lok Ayukta in investigating the case by providing further evidence. However, the government has placed them under suspension which was later revoked.
The earlier Lok Ayuktas did not realize their powers, but now as the head of the investigation arm of the government of Karnataka every opportunity is utilized to bring out the truth during the investigations.
In the drug scam when the contempt of notice was issued to the state government itself and under the rules the principal secretary of health becomes the person responsible. If the principal secretary had come forward and said that many more were involved then action would have been taken immediately against them. There was both interruption and interference in the investigation. However, such a situation did not arise as the secretary himself realized that his notification of suspension was wrong and he tendered an unconditional apology and then we dropped the proceedings against him.