Anti-graft mechanism fails in M’laya in 2016

SHILLONG: Though many corruption cases surfaced in 2016, there was no active steps on the part of authorities concerned to punish the guilty.
What was alarming in the year was that despite promises by the Chief Minister and others, Meghalaya Lokayukta was not formed. The government was also reluctant to revamp the Anti-Corruption Branch and the State Vigilance Commission.
It was in June this year that NPP had alleged irregularities in the tendering process for supply of PDS sugar and demanded a CBI inquiry. The allegation was that sugar was supplied at an exorbitant rate by a bidder, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer.
Though the State Government justified the action, the reply was not satisfactory.
The Social Welfare Department had also come under scanner for not calling proper tender for supplying edibles to babies and pregnant women.
Though a PIL was filed to fix responsibility on those involved, the High Court
was satisfied with a public apology from the Director of the Social Welfare Department, H.M Shangpliang, and a fine of Rs 5,000.
The pending education scam has again resurfaced in 2016, but after the High Court rejected the petition, the petitioner has decided to knock on the door of the Supreme Court.
As far as issues related to violation of building bye laws are concerned, the High Court in January this year had allowed the CBI to register an FIR and prosecute Chairperson of MUDA Ampareen Lyngdoh and 21 others, including eight MUDA officials, for granting permission to 13 persons to construct “illegal” high-rises in the state, but the CBI files are still pending in Delhi.
There were also anomalies in the recruitment for police personnel by MPSC that prompted one of the job aspirants, Millon Ch Momin, to file a PIL in the High Court.
The Court in June had ordered a CBI probe into the legality of the result of interviews conducted by MPSC between December 15 and 17, 2014, for the post of junior MPS officers in the Home (Police) Department.
The petitioner had questioned the fairness of the process adopted by MPSC and alleged that he was not on the select list despite securing higher marks than four Garo candidates. The matter will come up for hearing on January 30 next.
In several cases of omissions and commissions, responsibility was not fixed on officers concerned. One such incident was the FIR filed in 2016 related to the missing file of the Health Department.