Vehicle ‘scam’: State to file reply before HC this week

SHILLONG, Oct 23: The state government will file its reply before the High Court of Meghalaya this week into the alleged vehicle scam in which a top cop of Meghalaya Police has been named.
Informing this, an official at the Law department, on the condition of anonymity, said that the reply could not be filed due to some miscommunication.
It was also informed that the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against any officer without production of charges, materials and witnesses.
It may be mentioned that the High Court of Meghalaya has issued a rule of contempt against the Secretary of Home department for “deliberately disregarding” its order and “trying to obfuscate the issue and stand as an impediment to a fact-finding exercise in the matter of defalcation of public funds”.
“Let a suo motu rule of contempt be issued against the Secretary in the Home Department of the State for deliberately disregarding an order of this Court, trying to obfuscate the issue and stand as an impediment to a fact-finding exercise in the matter of defalcation of public funds. The rule is made returnable on November 2, 2022,” the court had said while hearing a PIL on the alleged misuse of official vehicles by the Police department and defalcation of funds relating to acquisition of vehicles.
The order, dated September 30, called upon the state to file a report through the Secretary in the Home department, indicating the effective measures taken, including arresting any attempt by those prima facie found to be involved in the racket to remove or dissipate or secret their assets or funds.
The report was required to be filed on October 17, according to the court.
Albeit the report was available on October 17, when the matter was taken up, since no affidavit had been prepared to take responsibility for the report, the matter was adjourned till October 19.
An affidavit has been filed now appending a report.
The High Court had also called the state’s report “perfunctory and most insulting”, and included the report in its entirety in the order.
It had said that no report or affidavit was filed by the concerned Secretary.