New Delhi, November 25, 2012 – News n Analysis by Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist, on new theory of Ex CAG Official RP Singh. He is reported to have said that Public Accounts Committee did suggest to him one of the methodologies to calculate the losses due to 2G Spectrum allocation and that came to Rs. 1.76 lakh crore in the final report. Does it mean he is coming close to the truth with this confession. What would you derive out of it?
It is reported that R P Singh has said today that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) did suggest one of the methodologies to the CAG to calculate the losses due to 2G spectrum allocation which were pegged at Rs 1.76 lakh crore in the final report.
Mr. RP Singh said that after he had given his draft report on the 2G scam in 2010, the PAC, which was under Murli Manohar Joshi, and had shown interest in the loss figures suggested one of the methodologies leading to the loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore.
What does Mr. RP Singh mean by interest by Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi? While giving an interview in IBN7 on Friday he said he does not doubt the integrity of any of the officers including Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi.
He further said that evidence to this effect was also contained in a note prepared by R B Sinha, Director General (Report Central) in the CAG. The contacts of officials between the CAG and PAC were very much there before the CAG had submitted its report to Parliament in November 2010.
However, Mr.RP Singh said that he would not name Mr. Joshi in this context since he has no documentary evidence against him (Mr. Joshi). In this case, I would like to ask Mr. RP Singh, has he oral evidence against him if not documentary?
In my analytic view, if you go through the answers of Mr. RP Singh right from the beginning wherever he gave seem to be contradictory and unclear. He never told anything straight, it remained confusing all the time.
He seems to have fallen into a question basket and wants to come out of it by one way or the other.
If the PAC had suggested to him one of the methodologies to the CAG to calculate the losses due to 2G Spectrum Allocation and which came to Rs. 1.76 lakh crore in the final report, how could he say that he had no knowledge about this figure? It falsifies his statement.
Whenever he finds himself in a fix while answering a particular question, he comes back to his earlier statement that he had never put the figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore in his draft report.
When the question of his signed report is taken up he goes back to his draft to justify his stand.
In other words, when he finds himself in a catching state in a question-answer net, he comes back to his earlier statement for best reasons known to him.
Then he says his senior officials, who he never named had asked him by a written order to sign the report. Finally he says he followed the instructions and signed the report.
The fact remains while signing the report, he could pretty well put his remarks anywhere and that was the right procedure as an auditor. If an auditor does not give his remarks, what type of Auditor he is?
His approach is doubtful, he should be put under strict inquiry to find out the truth and deal with him as per the govt procedure as a retirement rules, how could he be tackled and what legal action could be taken against him for his wrongfully performing his duties deliberately or under pressure.
If the Govt. let him free to give his statement like this allowing a great political turmoil, it shall be assumed that the Govt. is backing him in their own interest, the future of Winter Session of Parliament has become a questionable due to his statement.