New Delhi: After last year’s ugly infighting within the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), now friction within the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has come out in the open, with one regional special director passing an order to transfer an officer probing the Nirav Modi case, and the agency director revoking it almost immediately.
On Friday, ED joint director Satyabrata Kumar, who is handling the Nirav Modi probe and is currently in London for the extradition hearing, was transferred out of the department in the agency’s western region.
However, he was reinstated to his position within hours.
The transfer ordered by ED’s Mumbai special director, Vineet Agarwal, was revoked after the agency issued a clarification that reports Kumar’s transfer were “not correct” and were “denied”.
According to a source in the ED, the order was immediately revoked on the directions of the agency chief Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
Mishra told ThePrint that Agarwal was not authorised to pass such an order.
The ED chief also said that the officer who was transferred has gotten an extension approved by the Union government.
An officer of the rank of special director rank can only transfer officials up to the rank of assistant directors.
Mishra has now sought a written explanation from Agarwal, asking him to detail the need to pass the order while the officer concerned was in London for Modi’s bail hearing.
“We are not aware what transpired in Mumbai for Agarwal to have passed such an order. It seems that there is some discontentment which may have led to this move,” said another ED official on condition of anonymity.
Original order
The original order issued by Mumbai special director Vineet Agarwal said Kumar was being removed because the five-year period of his deputation had ended.
“Shri Satyabrata Kumar has completed his tenure of 5 years,” the order read.
“No extension in deputation beyond 5th year is allowed and deputationist officer is deemed to have been relieved on the date of expiry of deputation period unless the competent authority has with requisite approvals extended the period of deputation, in writing, prior to the date of its expiry,” the order said.
The order further reiterated that an immediate superior officer must ensure that the deputationist, in this case Kumar, does not “overstay”.
While Mishra said that the officer had received an extension from the government, details of it are not clear.
Agarwal’s order also mentioned that Kumar will only supervise a coal block case, related to a matter from 2006-2009, which is being monitored by the Supreme Court, while files of all other cases should be directly sent to additional director (western region) who will look after charge of Mumbai Zone.
Kumar could not be taken off the coal block case because of top court orders that said that no supervisory officer can be transferred or removed without the court’s permission.
“Shri Satyabrata Kumar, Joint Director shall continue to supervise the investigation of coal block case in MBZO-1 (Mumbai Zone) and all other files shall be directly marked from the concerned officers to Additional Director (WR) who shall look after the charge of MBZO-I till further orders from the HQ,” the order signed by Agarwal said.
Also read: In Nirav Modi case, Enforcement Directorate HQ steps in to overturn order to relieve probe officer
Revoked order
Just hours after Agarwal issued the order shunting out Kumar, a fresh order was issued — this time by the deputy director (Estt.) Rohit Anand — to cancel the special director’s order and declare it “void ab initio” (of no legal effect).
The second directive was passed from the ED headquarters at the Lok Nayak Bhawan in the national capital with the approval of Mishra.
“The office order passed by the Regional Special Director of Enforcement Western Region is hereby cancelled as void ab initio,” the order read.
“Sh Satyabrata Kumar shall continue to look after the charge of Mumbai Zonal Office-I until further orders of the Directorate of Enforcement,” the order said.
Past instances of ED infighting
This conflict is only the latest within the agency that has been marred by similar instances in the past.
Last year, the ED was struck by a controversy when joint director Rajeshwar Singh, investigating the Aircel Maxis case, was accused of being in touch with a person in Dubai and a secret report regarding this input was submitted to the Supreme Court by an intelligence agency.
The then ED director Karnal Singh had come out in the open to defend his officer and said that the call received from Dubai was pertaining an ongoing probe.
The agency also said that Singh was a responsible officer with an outstanding career.
In another instance from October last year, ED’s deputy director Niranjan Singh, who was earlier supervising the investigations into high-profile drug haul cases in Punjab, resigned citing “personal reasons”.
Singh had questioned Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in December 2014 in connection with one of these cases. He was due to retire in 2021.
Less than a month after he questioned Majithia, Singh was transferred to Kolkata in January 2015, to investigate the Saradha chit fund case. His transfer was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which issued a stay order, asking him to continue with the investigation into the “Bhola drug cases”.
Following the stay order, Singh’s equations with senior ED officials, including those in Delhi, became strained.
Also read: Nirav Modi appears in UK court where judge reviews new file of evidences against him
This report has been updated to modify ED director S.K. Mishra’s comments.
If the transfer was done with wrong intentions ,action should be taken against the officer who exceeded his powers especially when there were allegations saying Mr.Jaitleys daughter had worked in mr.Nirav Modi’s firm for a short period.{If paper reports are true.}
If the five year limit on deputation is sacrosanct, better housekeeping would have ensured that the ED headquarters in Delhi – not the regional office in Bombay – would have sought the apex court’s prior consent to sending Shri Satyabrata Kumar back to his parent organisation. A suitable replacement should have been posted in good time.