PANJIM: While Power Minister Milind Naik has held back the appointment of five Executive Engineers for the last one year, he has been pushing for the appointment of former chief Electrical Engineer S Lekshamnan, against who there are allegations of corruption, for the post of Electrical Inspector. Naik wanted Lekshamnan to be resurrected after retirement and brought back to the department.
Sources say the power minister is not interested in advertising for the post and wants his man Lekshamnan for the job appointed directly as he was handling many issues that the power minister was personally interested in. Readers are free to read between the lines what this meant.
Naik has written two letters to the present Chief Electrical Engineer – on August 24, 2015 and on October 16, 2015 – copies of which are in possession of Herald, directing the CEC to immediately appoint Lekshamnan, who has had quite a controversial term as CEC in the department, as Electrical Inspector.
“I propose the appointment of Shri S Lekshamnan in the post of Electrical Inspector, which is vacant from last one year as a result the statutory functions of the inspectorate are not being attended,” Naik says in the note to the CEC.
Further, he says, “I desire that the matter may be processed immediately and an action may be taken for appointment of S Lekshamnan in the post of Electrical Inspector by following due process as envisaged in the relevant act/rules.”
The minister had also ensured that Lekshamnan had got an eight-month extension of service after his retirement.
The NGO Goa Can, in a letter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, dated October 19, 2015 has alleged that frauds in the Electricity department were only by S Lekshamnan, ex-chief electrical engineer, who retired on August 31, 2015.
“This is because he himself has given approvals violating the procedure. Earlier there was a case in the department of release of power subsidy and in this regard neither the ex-power minister, the PA, nor the officers of the Power department were held responsible and only the head of department was made responsible,” the letter states.
Pointing to one particular case, the letter states, “In this fraud case if you see the noting of Executive Engineer XV, Margao or Suptd Engg Margao you will appreciate they have brought the correct facts to the notice of the Chief Engineer. However, interpreting the same for suitability to consumer, corrupt chief engineer has reduced the load.”
“Hence it is prayed that no doubt necessary inquiry be made of executive engineer Div XVI Margao or Suptd Engg Margao but as regards fixation of responsibility is concerned it should be only on Lekshamnan.”
