DMK legal wing seeks DVAC action against Tamil Nadu Minister A. Rajmohan and textbook board chairman over an alleged ₹5-crore bribe offer.
Seeking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act against State Minister for School Education, A Rajmohan, and chairman of Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services, A Loyola Mani, in connection with an offer of Rs Five Crore bribe made to them in lieu of an appointment as Tamil Nadu Eyal Isai Nataka Mandram president by an unnamed person, DMK’s legal wing alleged concealment of evidence of the crime.
In his complaint to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), joint secretary of the DMK’s legal wing and former MLA, I Paranthamen, said the offer of Rs five crore as bribe was a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Recalling the confession of Rajmohan on November 1 at Tamil Nadu Day celebrations in the Government Museum auditorium about the offer made through Loyola Mani and his refusal to accept it, saying that Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay would not appoint an unfit person even if he was offered Rs 500 crore, Paranthamen said it was a cognizable offence.
Paranthamen said Loyola Mani, who was a public servant, had been in touch the person who had offered the bribe and the Minister, despite knowing the identity of the person did not complain about the offer of illegal gratification to the DVAC or to any other law enforcement authority though the government had appointed Pushpavanam Kuppusamy to the post on October 5 itself.
Since the offer of the bribe itself was an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to 7 years or with a fine or both, both Rajmohan and Loyola Mani had concealed evidence of a crime and were equally culpable, he said.
The Minister’s statement made on a government platform before other government officials and the media was itself a first information of a cognizable offence that needed to be investigated, Paranthamen said, adding that only Rajmohan and Loyala Mani were the only two persons who knew the identity of the person who offered the huge bribe.
Until the DVAC acted immediately and investigated the case, there was a risk of electronic evidence including call detail records and other communications getting lost or destroyed, he said.
