NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao is trying hard to cover up the Rs 3600 crore share scandal. An officer in the Prime minister’s office allegedly Put pressure on the central bureau of investigation _ chief, K. Madhavan, not to involve any central minister or high dignitary but Madhavan offered to seek premature retirement rather than concede the officers demand.

Rao can hardly escape responsibility in the matter although he himself did nothing directly to influence the share scandal enquiry. It is well known that the Indian prime minister employs officers of his confidence in the powerful prime minister’s secretariat. It is usual with him to put across inconvenient messages through his officers,

The shares scandal appears to have immense potential to rock Rao’s boat. Already the scandal claimed its first victim in the minister of state P, Chidam bram who had to resign a few days ago for his involvement in the scandal. Rumors here are that many more central ministers are involved in the shares scandal. The scandal resulted in the State Bank of India and other banks losing as heavy an amount as Rs 3600 crore. This Amount isabout25 times the bribes paid in connection with the Bofors guns scandal.

A controversy is raging in India about Madhavan’s offer of premature retirement. The Indian parliament had a heated discussion on the matter recently. The government was charged with efforts to bail out the ministers involved in the scandal. The modus operandi was that an officer in the prime minister’s office called Madhavan to tell him not to mention any minister’s involvement in the matter until prior clearance by the prime minister’s house. A bait was also offered to Madhavan that he would be promoted,

The Pioneer”, a national daily which gained a reputation as an independent newspaper headed by editor Vinod Mehta, came out with a lead story entitled “Madhavan was offered deal by PMO office.” The story by G.K. Singh said names had surfaced in the course the interrogation and a detailed program as needed to establish their company in the scam, The investigations also led the CBI to the discovery of checks for which payment had verified.

The sources dismissed the theory the big profile investigator had provoked to seek voluntary retirement because he had been denied program on as Additional Director,

The sources said the Government was spreading “disinformation” about Madhavan’s letter seeking” promotion. “The letter they are talking about was written on March 27, that is before he was entrusted the responsibility of investigating the scam,” he said.

‘The letter had in fact pleaded the use of direct recruits to the CBI, saying that one of the two posts of Additional Directors should go to them. It was no case a personal representation as “official sources” made it out to be briefings.

The CBI sources laughed off the “personal reasons” theory floated by the financial sources” in their briefings reported by Minister of State for Personnel in Parliament. The brief letter cited “certain considerations” as having led Madhavan take the decision to quit.

At no time, cither in his letter, or in the subsequent conversation on the issue with CBI Director S.K. Dutta had Nadhav an cited “personal reasons,” the sources averred, In fact, he is understood to have categorically refused to spell out the “circumstances” when queried about it by Dutta.

In fact, there are several discrepancies in the briefing by unidentified official sources. Besides the gross misrepresentation that Madhavan had made a plea for promotion-this distortion becomes clear after Alva’s statement in Parliament the official had also claimed that Madhavan told his “senior officials in the CBI” that he was quitting for personal reasons.

Alva’s statement records clearly that Madhavan had declined to spell out the circumstances in which he had sought voluntary retirement. The statement subsequently claims that Madhavan told the CBI Director “on phone” on July 24 that “it was entirely for personal reasons that he was seeking voluntary retirement.”

Madhavan’s supporters in the CBI are also very bitter about insinuations by Bureau officials that he instructed the CBI counsel to seek Harshad Mehta’s release on July 28, two days before his previous remand was to have ended. They point out that the remand for the case pertaining to the State Bank of India, which Madhavan was handling, was actually over on July 16. The subsequent remand to CBI custody (till July 30) was in relation to the United Commercial Bank case, being handled by another CBI Joint Director R.C. Sharma.,

Thus he could have had nothing to do with the plea for advancing the hearing on July 28.

“In fact,” the sources said, “the CBI counsel M.M Joshi had asked for the advancement because he had to be present in Goa in connection with a murder case he was handling.

Madhavan had nothing to do with the preponement, and there is no question of any inquiry against him” the sources said.

Meanwhile, a high-level meeting was held here to assess the damage caused by the controversy of Madhavan’s “voluntary retirement.”

The emerging consensus was that should be allowed to go and that the Government could handle the “negative fallout subsequently.”

The Home Minister’s statement to Parliament that the Government could not “compel” anyone to change their mind was to be a reflective decision,

Incidentally, Alva had several months before that said the Government had not accepted the resignation.”

Article extracted from this publication >> Aug 14, 1992