DNA Exclusive: AAP govt's spy unit comes under scanner

A clandestine group called the Feedback Unit, working directly under the office of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, was given a secret service fund of Rs 1 crore, but it spent only Rs 50,000 on a sting operation to expose corruption in a private school.

The man who is said to have conducted the sting does not exist, according to the Vigilance Department of the Delhi government, which has written to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), giving details of the functioning of the alleged spy unit.

The CBI had registered a case last month to probe the illegalities around the setting up of the alleged spy unit. “Fifty thousand rupees were spent to trap a bribery complaint in a school named Kalka Public School, Alaknanda,” documents accessed by DNA show. The amount was allocated to Kailash Chand, Upper Division Clerk in the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). But, interestingly, after scrutinising the records, the Vigilance Department was perplexed as there was no person named Kailash Chand in the ACB.

Sources said that retired officers of Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing, Income-Tax Department and other investigating agencies were part of the Feedback Unit and were provided high-end vehicles and unaccounted money to carry out their snooping.

“A car, two SUVs and three bikes were provided to the unit, along with supporting staff of four data entry operators hired through the Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited by the Delhi government,\" the Vigilance Department letter to the CBI said.

The remuneration of the Feedback Unit was paid on the basis of attendance. The staff have recorded 100 per cent attendance and Rs 40,82,982 has been released since February 2016 by way of secret service expenditure, remuneration, telephone and other miscellaneous expenses. But the Vigilance Department, under which the spy unit was formed, is clueless as to where the staff sat and what work they did since inception.

“Since inception, no report or outcome of the work done by the unit has come to the knowledge of the Directorate of Vigilance. Clearly, the functioning of the unit has been secretive to the department,” the document said.

The CBI had last month registered an FIR and had also raided the Vigilance Department office at Delhi Secretariat.

Explaining how the money was used, the Vigilance Department letter to the CBI said: “In the Budget for financial year 2016-2017, Rs 1 crore was kept for secret service expenditure. It was proposed by Deputy Director (Feedback) to provide Rs 20 lakh as secret fund to the unit during the current financial year. From the budget, Rs 10 lakh was released in two tranches for Rs 5,00,000 each. Out of the Rs 10 lakh, Rs 5.5 lakh has been reportedly spent on espionage work. The last expenditure from the fund was an amount of Rs 50,000, which has been stated to be given to Kailash Chand. The details of utilisation of Rs 5.5 lakh from the secret service expenditure are not available, except to the extent of Rs 50,000 as mentioned above.”

The documents further stated that the “unit was under the Vigilance Secretary but it is functioning under the direct control of the Chief Minister's Office”. The Vigilance Department further told the CBI that they are not aware of the functioning and the work done by the unit. “No feedback has been received by the Director of Vigilance,” the documents stated.

During the investigation, it was found that when Deputy Secretary, Vigilance, through a letter on July 15, 2016, requested to follow the guidelines to regulate secret service expenditure, RC Sinha, Advisor to Kejriwal, replied on July 29, 2016, to the Vigilance Director that he is ready to show the records, provided the latter visits the Feedback Unit. Sinha and PK Punj, Deputy Director, Feedback Unit, were also requested to furnish a feedback and report the work done by the unit again on September 26, 2016. “However no response was received from them,” the document stated.

“In order to take action for demanding /receiving bribe, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are invoked. In this case, the management and the school staff may not fall under the definition of Public Servant. So the question is whether such expenses is legally tenable, and, if not, how it should be recovered,” the document stated.

The Vigilance Department clearly stated to the CBI that finding illegal activities, they had written to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Lieutenant Governor, requesting them to probe the irregularities and suggested the immediate closure of the unit “to avoid further infructuous and questionable expenditure”.