Stating that the former Information Commissioner during YS Jaganmohan Reddy’s regime has embezzled public funds for the Sakshi media by misusing his position, Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas, representing the ACB, argued in the AP High Court said that 43 percent of funds were giving only to Sakshi.
He said that out of the total government advertisements worth Rs. 859 crore during the previous government’s tenure, advertisements worth Rs. 371 crore (43%) were allocated only to Sakshi media, contrary to the rules. Moreover, he said that it was paid more than the price demanded by the Sakshi management for the publication of the advertisements and made an undue profit.
He alleged that thereby causing a loss of Rs. 19 crore to the government exchequer. Srinivas also said that 28 percent of the advertisements were given to the newspaper with the highest circulation, 43 percent to the second-ranked Sakshi, and only 0.03 percent to the third-ranked newspaper.
He lamented that Rs. 1.17 crores were paid to a newspaper not published in AP. He informed that the GO issued by the state government regarding the issuance of government advertisements violated the guidelines given by the Supreme Court.
Srinivas made his arguments at length that he got undue benefits by issuing advertisements and taking huge commissions from the relevant agencies. Moreover, he also said that all the GOs related to the appointment of employees, issuance of advertisements, and tariff hike were issued in the name of the petitioner.
He said that during the previous government, a person in a high position took decisions in favor of the family organization. 254 people were appointed as employees on a contract basis, contrary to the provisions of the law. The names of those employees were sent to lower-level staff and their appointment files were asked to be prepared.
Some of the employees were paid salaries from the Information and Public Relations Department without appointment orders. Vijay Kumar Reddy took several decisions with malicious intent. The vigilance submitted a report stating that there were irregularities in the appointment of employees.
After conducting a thorough investigation based on that report, the ACB registered a case against the petitioner. Moreover, Vijay Kumar Reddy is not a state government employee. He was an Indian Information Services Officer and was brought to the state on deputation in 2019. He was appointed as the Commissioner of Information and Public Relations Department and ex-officio Secretary of the General Administration Department.
Is there any conspiracy behind bringing Vijay Kumar Reddy to the state? Who brought him here? Why did he bring him? All these matters need.
