Full Report-Revised
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES FIFTY-SEVENTH REPORT (Presented on the 13 th December, 2011) RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI December,2011 1 C O N T E N T S PAGES 1. Personnel of the Committee (i) -(ii) 2. Report of the Committee 1- 25 *3. Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee *4. Annexures I. Letter dated 16 January, 2010 of Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Member, Rajya Sabha. II Letter dated 18 February, 2010 of Shri Atul Kumar Rai CEO & MD IFCI Ltd. In the matter. III Comments of Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy dated 9 March, 2010 on the Reply of Shri Atul Kumar Rai IV Communication dated 22.10.2010 from the Department of Financial Services. V Communicated dated 19.1.2011 from the Department of Financial Services. VI Office Memorandum dated 23 August, 2011 from the Department of Personnel & Training *To be appended at the printing stage 2 COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (w.e.f. 29.9.2010) 1. Shri K. Rahman Khan Chairman 2. Shri Rama Chandra Khuntia 3. Shri Rishang Keishing 4. Shri Birender Singh 5. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia 6. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad 7. Shri Balbir Punj 8. Dr. Akhilesh Das Gupta 9. Shri Sitaram Yechury 10. Smt. Kanimozhi SECRETARIAT 1. Dr. V.K. Agnihotri, Secretary-General 2. Shri N.C. Joshi, Secretary 3. Shri Mukul Pande, Director 4. Dr. Saket Kumar, Assistant Director 3 COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (w.e.f. 24.9.2009) 1. Shri K. Rahman Khan - Chairman 2. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi 3. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia 4. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad 5. Shri Balbir Punj 6. Shri Sitaram Yechury 7. Shri Jai Prakash 8. Vacant 9. Vacant 10. Vacant SECRETARIAT 1. Dr. V.K. Agnihotri, Secretary-General 2. Shri N.C. Joshi, Secretary 3. Shri Mukul Pande, Director 4. Dr. Saket Kumar, Assistant Director 4 RAJYA SABHA FIFTY – SEVENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES I, the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, present this Fifty-seventh Report of the Committee to the House. The report deals with the case of alleged breach of privilege arising out of the complaint of Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Member, Rajya Sabha, against Shri Atul Kumar Rai CEO & MD, Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI) for allegedly misbehaving with him when he had gone to meet Shri Rai in his office on 14 January, 2010, in connection with the rehabilitation of a sick Sugar Mill, namely, Marhowrah and Padrouna Sugar Works Ltd. 2. Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Member, Rajya Sabha, in his letter dated 16 January, 2010 (Annexure - I) had mentioned that in his erstwhile Parliamentary Constituency in Chapra, Bihar, a sugar industry, namely, Marhowarah and Padrouna Sugar Works had gone sick and the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had, on 10 July, 2008, appointed IFCI as the Operating Agency to advertise, within 30 days, for rehabilitation of the said sick unit. He further mentioned that as he was pursuing the matter, he had gone to meet Shri Atul Kumar Rai, CEO & MD of IFCI in this connection on 14 January, 2010. He presented the case with papers and wanted to know the latest position in the matter. According to Shri Rudy, when he pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement of the CEO, IFCI and raised certain queries about the order of BIFR dated 10 July, 2008 in which the IFCI was under an obligation for seeking a bid for the sick sugar unit, Shri Rai showed him a note and read out the things which were not related to the issue. When Shri Rudy stated that the points which he had raised were incorrect and that the court orders were different and that his office was not producing the correct facts, Shri Rai allegedly reacted by saying that he would not listen to anything about his office. According to Shri Rudy, Shri Rai was loud and argumentative in his 5 conversation and made abusive gestures and also said that he would not tolerate such a person (Shri Rudy) in his room. When Shri Rudy asked him to exercise restraint, Shri Rai allegedly started screaming at the top of his voice and threatened to call the security and get Shri Rudy thrown out of his office. On the basis of the above mentioned allegation of misbehaviour by Shri Atul Kumar Rai, CEO & MD of IFCI, Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy requested that the case may be examined by the Committee of Privileges, Rajya Sabha, to ascertain full facts and do justice in the matter. 3. Shri Atul Rai, to whom the complaint of Shri Rudy was forwarded, in his comments furnished vide letter dated 18 February, 2010 (Annexure - II) received through the Department of Financial Services in the Ministry of Finance, submitted, inter alia, that he had the highest regard for Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Member, Rajya Sabha, both at personal level and as a Member of Parliament. He further stated that Shri Rudy had called him earlier to request him to initiate action for sale of a sugar unit in which IFCI was appointed as an Operating Agency by the BIFR. According to Shri Rai, when Shri Rudy came to his office, he was received with all courtesy, treated with dignity and respect due to him as a Member of Parliament, at all times. He further stated that he did not utter a single word which was in any sense disrespectful. According to him, he took all manner of insults quietly and humbly and said or did nothing in the course of the meeting to arouse even a suspicion of anything but the highest regard for Shri Rudy. Shri Rai further informed that, subsequently, Shri Rudy lodged a complaint in the local Police Station against him and he had also been interrogated by the police in this connection. He further mentioned that following the meeting with Shri Rudy, it was decided to approach BIFR with a request to appoint another agency as Operating Agency with reference to the case and relieve IFCI from the assignment, which, according to Shri Rai, was the outcome of the meeting and in accordance with the wishes of Shri Rudy. Shri Rai, in 6 the end, submitted that in spite of his best endeavours to show highest degree of respect and courtesy to the Hon'ble Member, if there was a sign of suffered injustice on his own part, which caused Shri Rudy the slightest irritation, he tenders his unconditional and unequivocal apologies for the same. He, accordingly, requested that the matter may be treated as closed. 4. Shri Rudy, to whom the comments of Shri Rai were forwarded, vide his letter dated 9 March, 2010 (Annexure - III) expressed dissatisfaction over the reply of Shri Atul Kumar Rai. He alleged that Shri Rai's response skirted the main issue and tendered a misleading apology. According to Shri Rudy, Shri Rai preferred to ignore the main charge and instead, in the garb of carefully drafted words, he had chosen to cast aspersions on him. Shri Rudy observed that, in his letter, Shri Rai had stated that he (Shri Rudy) had requested IFCI to initiate the sale of sugar unit, while the fact was that he had requested Shri Rai to implement the court orders of BIFR, which had been deliberately delayed. Shri Rudy further observed that, in his letter, Shri Rai had stated that he took all manners of insult quietly and humbly. Countering this statement, Shri Rudy contended that it was he who was aggrieved and who had complained at all levels, not Shri Rai. Shri Rudy further stated that Shri Rai, by tendering unconditional apology, had contradicted his own stand that nothing ever happened. In this backdrop, Shri Rudy made the following specific submissions:- (i) Shri Rai outrightly rejected the charges without giving an explanation; (ii) Shri Rai preferred to blame Shri Rudy instead of acknowledging his mistake; (iii) Shri Rai contradicted himself by offering an apology and stating that nothing had ever happened; (iv) Shri Rai further advantaged the incumbent by being instrumental in initiating another legal process by offering to be relieved as an Operating Agency and hence ensuring further delay in the implementation of Orders of BIFR and vindicating Shri Rudy's charge; and (v) The statement of Shri Rai was not only false and misleading but also mischievous once read carefully. 7 5. Shri Rudy further stated that the purpose of his visit was in no way personal but was to represent the case of farmers whose legitimate requests were being deliberately delayed and more so because the undertaking in question was a Sugar Industry, which belonged to the Government of India, and his submission related to the grievance of sugarcane farmers and to the opening of a Sugar Mill, which was declared sick by BIFR. Shri Rudy pleaded that if such instances and misdemeanours were ignored and allowed to go scot- free, then the people, who have great faith in the august Parliamentary Institutions, would be completely shattered. He also submitted that any pardon without examination of facts, which impaired his parliamentary obligation, would adversely affect the morale and credibility of all those public representatives, who intended to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities with dignity and respect. Shri Rudy finally argued that since the response of Shri Atul Kumar Rai, CEO & MD, IFCI, was far from the truth, he would request to get the entire matter examined by the Privileges Committee. 6. The matter was placed before the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, along with the aforesaid facts, who, under rule 203 of the Rules of Procedure & Conduct of Business in the Council of States, referred it to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report.