The Delhi Government has called for withdrawing all work from Special Secretary (Vigilance) YVVJ Rajshekhar, who is probing the alleged corruption in the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bungalow at 6 Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, in which it was alleged that the AAP Government in Delhi spent over `45 crore on the rebuilding and renovation.

Rajshekhar was also holding the charge of Special Secretary (Services).

This comes after the Delhi Services Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj issued a show-cause notice to IAS officer and services department secretary Ashish More and threatened disciplinary action against him for allegedly not complying with a direction for his transfer and going incommunicado.

Citing complaints against Rajshekhar for “running an extortion racket and demanding protection money”, Bharadwaj on May 13 ordered withdrawing all work assigned to the officer with immediate effect.

Rajshekhar was also probing the demolition of a heritage monument by the then CEO of Delhi Jal Board, Udit Prakash, to construct a sprawling bungalow for himself, siphoning off gold running into several kg and irregularities in the Delhi Construction Board and relief disbursement to workers. He had probed the alleged Delhi Excise policy scam.

In a reply to his superiors, Rajshekhar said he was being “prevented from performing his duties” and apprehended “serious threat and diversion of records” pertaining to sensitive matters like the excise policy and the Chief Minister’s residence renovation. He also requested that the matter be taken to the High Court for a stay.

As per the note sent by the Bharadwaj, “There are complaints that Rajshekhar is running an extortion racket and demanding protection money. This allegation is quite serious which needs to be examined in detail... Therefore, all work assigned to Rajshekhar is hereby withdrawn. The same may be distributed amongst ADs and ADs will directly report to Secretary (Vigilance). The ADs should directly put up the files to Secretary (Vigilance). This is for immediate compliance till further orders.”

Bharadwaj also distributed Rajshekhar’s work among the assistant directors (ADs) in the vigilance department with specific directions to the ADs to report and put up files directly to the secretary (Vigilance). Sources said Bharadwaj had also directed that records from the senior IAS officer’s room be seized.

In his reply to his superior, Rajshekhar said he is a “Member of IAS and protected under Rule 311 of the Constitution of India and also protected under Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre Rules 1954)”. 

“One cannot deny the rights which are accrued to a civil servant/public servant under the rule which he is entitled for,” he said in his reply.

Stressing that he must be allowed to perform his duties objectively and dispassionately as per rule of law and documents and records that are available on the file, Rajshekhar underlined that vigilance inquiries are done as per the set protocols and manuals prepared by the Central Vigilance Commission (VGC).

“It is just like mathematics and there is no scope for subjectivity while dealing with such cases as this case is filtered through due process as established by Law. The undersigned is being prevented from performing the duties and I apprehend serious threat and diversions of records pertaining to sensitive matters like Excise matter, 6 Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, DIP, etc. It is requested that this matter may be brought to the notice of the High Court to stay the order issued by the minister (Vigilance) vide his note dated 13.05.2023,” he said.

Rajshekhar  also urged that permission may be accorded to engage Sanjay Jain, ASG, before the High Court along with Yoginder Handoo as Special Counsel/Briefing Counsel and if need be, the matter may also be brought before the notice of Supreme Court wherein permission may be accorded to engage Harish Salve, senior counsel in the Supreme Court.

He also noted that this kind of restraint to perform the duties amounts to indirectly transferring the undersigned from this Department which is nothing but subverting the decision of the Supreme Court dated 31.10.2013 wherein the officer can be transferred only through deliberation of the Civil Services Board”.  “One cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The officer is also entitled for rights that are provided to him under the All India Services Cadre Rules i.E. Rule 7,” Rajshekhar added in its reply to the seniors.