Calcutta HC removes ED’s lead probe officer in job scam case, says Abhishek’s questioning on October 3 must not be ‘hampered’

 The judge has made it clear that the ED is empowered under provisions of law to ensure the presence of the witness before the agency on the stipulated date without fail, no matter what the witness’s excuses are, says senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya

Sougata Mukhopadhyay, TT, Calcutta, 30.09.23: Less than a week after the Calcutta High Court severely reprimanded senior Enforcement Directorate officer Mithilesh Kumar Mishra for dragging his feet in investigating the assets of Leaps and Bounds, a company which has Trinamul Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee as its CEO, the state’s high judiciary debarred Mishra from not only investigating the primary school teachers recruitment scam case but also from all cases arising out of the state.

On being appraised of Banerjee’s decision to ignore the agency’s fresh summons for appearance in connection with the case on October 3 and instead remain present at his party’s previously scheduled programme in the Capital, the court also directed the ED to ensure that the agency’s scheduled timeline for enquiry and investigation it had in mind for that day is not hampered in any manner.

Passing the interim order, Justice Amrita Sinha stated: “On the last occasion the court had an opportunity to interact with the said Mithilesh Kr Mishra in open court. Shri Mishra was unable to provide satisfactory answers to the questions put forward by the court. On such interaction, the court is convinced that the said officer will not be competent enough to handle the instant recruitment scam case which is of a huge magnitude. The director, Enforcement Directorate, is directed to immediately assign the work entrusted to Shri Mithilesh Kr Mishra to some other competent officer. Shri Mithilesh Kr Mishra shall be relieved of investigation of the present case. The director, Enforcement Directorate, is directed to engage Shri Mithilesh Kumar Mishra in some other case but the said officer will not be entrusted to investigate any case arising in the state of West Bengal.”

“It has been brought to the notice of this court that summons have been issued asking for appearance on 3rd October, 2023. The investigating officers shall take necessary steps to follow up with the investigation so that the same may be concluded at the earliest. The director, Enforcement Directorate, is directed to take immediate steps in the matter so that the enquiry and investigation which is scheduled on the 3rd is not hampered in any manner whatsoever,” the judge’s order further read.

Interpreting the latter part of the order, senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya who is also one of the counsels in the case, said: “The judge has made it clear that the ED is empowered under provisions of law to ensure the presence of the witness before the agency on the stipulated date without fail, no matter what the witness’s excuses are.”

“If required, the agency can also take him into custody and make him sit for the examination. The court will not tolerate any further delay in this investigation,” he further clarified.

Earlier in the day Banerjee, while confirming that he would ignore the agency summons, had posted on his X timeline: “The fight against the deprivation of WB and its rightful dues shall persist regardless of the obstacles. No force on Earth can hinder my dedication to fight for the people of WB and their fundamental rights. I'll be in Delhi joining the protest on Oct 2nd & 3rd,” and added: “STOP ME IF U CAN!”

Bhattacharya brought the purported post to the notice of the judge right at the beginning of Friday’s hearing and prayed for an appropriate direction from the court.

The direction to remove Mishra was passed by Sinha on grounds that “the court has lost confidence in him” despite the ED counsel Dhiraj Trivedi submitting in court that the officer “has been doing wonderful work and that the agency has already reconstituted the investigation team with additional officers to probe the case”. Mishra, an assistant director of the ED, was serving as the lead officer in charge of the primary school recruitment scam case and faced the heat of the Bench on Monday for falling woefully short of providing satisfactory answers to the judge’s queries on why he made inadequate progress in unearthing the culprits of the scam despite working for over 15 months on it.

“Let him do his wonderful job somewhere else,” the judge told the agency counsel during the course of the hearing. “The confidence level of the officer appeared to be very low. If an ED officer does not have that level of confidence how will he tackle this kind of situation? The court has lost confidence in him, so he is required to leave. Somebody else will come and take up the case,” she stated in reference to her courtroom interaction with Mishra on Monday.

Handing over yet another report from Mishra to the Bench, this time in a sealed cover, the ED informed the court that it has made significant progress in the case which are outlined in the confidential report that cannot be discussed in an open court for reasons of sensitivity of information it contained. “We will file a comprehensive report to this court on October 10 as directed. We are leaving no stone unturned. We assure this court that procedures are being followed and there was no lackadaisical or laid back attitude from our part,” the ED lawyer submitted, while admitting there was a lapse in the agency’s part to not have mentioned those progress details in its previous report.

“As on date, we have traced Rs 49.8 crores related to this scam,” the ED’s submission was quickly interjected by the judge: “But you are unable to identify the person responsible.”

“As far as the predicament of our officers are concerned, we are currently investigating 131 cases. We have six investigating officers and four officers above them. So each IO is saddled with the responsibility of 22 cases,” Trivedi informed the court to make his point on how stretched the agency already is.

Stating his apprehension about the security of the investigating officers concerned, the counsel submitted: “We have also reconstituted a team with two additional IOs. I am not disclosing names because my officers are very apprehensive and they don’t have any security from the central government as of now. We are trying to requisition more people in the team so that we can come to a logical conclusion. We will conclude this probe because we are an agency which is responsible and known for its credibility.”