'With nearly 45 days before the deadline to conclude the case, the transfer of a key officer in the case is a whammy,' said an Intelligence Officer.
Published Aug 16, 2023 | 8:10 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 16, 2023 | 8:10 PM
A senior police officer said that only after Nagajothi was brought in was the Final Report amended and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act included in the case. (Creative Commons)
The recent transfer of Central Crime Branch (CCB) Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) G Nagajothi has raised many eyebrows, particularly of those who have been following the sensational “cash-for-jobs” case in which Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
On 14 August, Tamil Nadu Home Secretary P Amudha ordered the transfer of seven IPS officers in the state, including Nagajothi. She was transferred to the State Crime Record Bureau as its Superintendent of Police (SP). The post is considered insignificant in the police department.
In 2015, several persons, including Gobi, Devasagayam, Arulmani, RB Arun Kumar, and Ganesh Kumar, lodged a complaint with the CCB that they had given money for jobs in the Transport Department to Senthil Balaji’s brother Ashok Kumar and one Karthik, who claimed to be Balaji’s brother-in-law.
They said that the two had demanded a bribe for securing appointments, but were not given jobs, which included the post of drivers, conductors, draftsman, etc.
Since their case was not taken up by the CCB, a few of them approached the court.
On 20 June, 2016, the Madras High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing), to take over the investigation and also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to monitor the same.
The Central Crime Branch-I, investigating the case, filed three charge sheets in which Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok were arrayed as accused. The Final Report was filed on 7 June, 2018, against Balaji and three others, only for offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 506(1), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Meanwhile, RB Arun Kumar approached the Madras High Court with a specific allegation that a huge amount — more than ₹2 crore — that was paid to Balaji, had been completely suppressed by the investigating agency and that a dummy charge sheet had been filed against his minions.
Following this, on 27 November, 2019, the court directed the CCB to conduct further investigation.
At this juncture, the then-AIADMK government brought Nagajothi into the CCB to monitor the case.
A senior police officer, who is well aware of the facts of the job racket case, told South First, on condition of anonymity, that only after Nagajothi was brought in was the Final Report amended and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act included in the case.
“After Nagajothi took charge, one Shanmugam, who claims to be Personal Assistant to Minister Senthil Balaji and who was arrayed as Accused No 3 in the job racket case, approached the Madras High Court and sought to quash the FIR against him, stating that a compromise had been reached between the victims and him.
Following him, one Sahayarajan and Vetriselvan, who were also arrayed as accused in the case, approached the court in a similar manner,” the officer said.
Sources in the CCB said that in July 2023, under the supervision of DCP Nagajothi, the CCB had summoned nearly 120 persons, including the victims who were connected to the job racket case, and proceeded with the case in full force.
An Intelligence Officer, who is monitoring the case closely, told South First that there are two kinds of people involved in the case. One, the brokers — people like Devasagayam, who collected money from several people and handed it over to the minister for jobs — and the individual victims.
The officer said, “After Nagajothi took charge of the case, she arrayed the brokers as accused and the persons (victims) who gave money to the brokers as witnesses in the case. That’s how a case should be handled for an easy conviction of the accused. But in recent days, after Balaji was arrested by the ED, there was much pressure mounted on Nagajothi to add all the victims as accused for being involving in the bribe. Moreover, the DCP had recorded everything in the case diary.”
“If the witnesses are arrayed as accused, the case will prolong and it will be difficult to file charge sheets against hundreds of people. Moreover, with nearly 45 days before the deadline to conclude the case, the transfer of a key officer in the case is a whammy,” he said.
Savukku Shankar, the whistle-blower who brought the case into the limelight, while speaking to South First, charged that right from the beginning, the Tamil Nadu police have been keen on helping Minister Senthil Balaji and his aides in the case.
“What is the necessity to transfer a key officer of a case, which is directly monitored by the Supreme Court? How will the newly-appointed officer study and understand the depth of the case, and will finish it within 30 September, the deadline given by the Supreme Court?” he questioned.
Pointing out Amit Shah’s recent speech at Ramanathapuram — that Stalin wants to retain Balaji as minister as he knows that the latter would reveal all the secrets about the DMK government’s corruption — Shankar said that protecting a tainted minister will tarnish the DMK government and it will cost the party in the future.
In 2021, the ED took “proceeds of crime” in the case. On 29 July, 2021, a day before the high court quashed the cases as it accepted the joint compromise memo filed by Shanmugam, Sahayarajan, and Vetriselvan, the ED registered an Information Report on the job racketing case (ECIR/MDSZO/21/2021) and issued summons to Minister Senthil Balaji.
Again, a case was filed by one Devasagayam in the high court seeking a de novo (afresh) investigation in the case, which was granted.
By this time, the ED also filed a petition before the Trial Court seeking certified copies of the FIR, statements of witnesses, and Final Report in the job racket case. On 9 November, 2021, the trial court directed the supply of certified copies of the FIRs, complaints, and statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code.
“The minister, who is powerful in the Cabinet, was furious about the CCB and believed that DCP Nagajothi had handed over evidence and facts of the case to the ED. There was more pressure on Nagajothi,” the officer said.
Further, the officer said that, last year, on the occasion of Independence Day, Nagajothi was awarded the President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service and, this year, she was awarded with a transfer to a trivial post, which is considered a punishment posting in the department.
The order of the Madras High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court and several petitions were filed.
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court set aside the de nova investigation ordered by the Madras High Court and directed the Investigation Officer of the CCB to proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offenses under the PC Act and file Final Reports in the trial court within two months.
The Supreme Court also warned that any let-up on the part of the Investigation Officer will pave the way for appointing a Special Investigation Team in the future.
Thereafter, since the probe could not be completed, the CCB again approached the Supreme Court seeking six months more time to proceed with the case. But the Apex Court, on 9 August, 2023, expressed its displeasure with the request.
The court said, “In the original order itself only two months’ time had been granted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made, we extend the time granted by this court by judgement dated 16 May, 2023, till 30 September, 2023. No further application for extension of time will be entertained and if it is brought to this court that the directions have not been complied with, the SIT would be constituted.”
