Kerala has ordered a fresh Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) inquiry into alleged irregularities linked to a 2006 Public Works Department road project involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with state Health Minister K Muralidharan saying the case concerns his earlier tenure as a government secretary and not his current constitutional office.
Speaking to ANI on Monday, Muralidharan said complaints had been made against Kumar when he served as Kerala’s PWD Secretary and that the inquiry was not politically motivated. He said complaints had come from both the ruling party and the Opposition at the time.
“This case is not against the Chief Election Commissioner; this case was against our former government secretary of Kerala,” Muralidharan said, according to ANI. He added that the government had taken up the matter after fresh complaints were raised by “some important persons”.
Kerala Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had earlier directed the VACB to investigate alleged irregularities during Kumar’s tenure as PWD Secretary in 2006. The case relates to the alleged death by suicide of Malaysian civil engineer Lee See Been, who was associated with the PATI-BEL consortium involved in upgrading the MC Road under the Kerala State Transport Project.
According to the report, a purported suicide note by Lee See Been had named Kumar, who was serving as PWD Secretary at the time. The fresh inquiry was initiated after allegations that the preliminary inquiry conducted in 2006 had been derailed because of external pressure.
The Home Department has sought the files connected with the 2006 VACB preliminary inquiry. Chennithala has directed the Vigilance Director to conduct a detailed examination of the allegations of external influence and take appropriate action based on the findings. The Home Minister’s Office described the allegation of outside influence as serious and said it warranted a thorough investigation.
The inquiry places a past public works administration matter alongside questions about the handling of vigilance investigations into infrastructure projects. The supplied report does not establish the outcome of the earlier inquiry, the specific irregularities alleged in the road project, or any finding against Kumar. Those issues will depend on the records sought by the Home Department and the findings of the fresh VACB investigation.
The next formal step is the examination of the 2006 inquiry files by the Vigilance authorities, followed by action based on the findings, as directed by the Home Minister.
