Panaji, June 8: RTI activist and transport businessman Sudip Narayan Tamankar has lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Goa, seeking a thorough inquiry into the grant of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to only seven Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors (AMVIs) in the Directorate of Transport.

In his complaint, Tamankar has alleged that the Director of Transport, Deputy Director of Administration, members of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the dealing head clerk and other officials acted arbitrarily in extending the MACP benefits to only seven officials while similar cases involving other AMVIs remain under scrutiny.

According to the complaint, the issue traces its roots to alleged irregularities in the recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in 2011 and subsequent investigations initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Tamankar stated that an FIR was registered in 2013 regarding the recruitment process and that a departmental inquiry was later conducted following directions from the Bombay High Court at Goa.

The complaint states that inquiry officer Johnson Bedy Fernandes submitted his final report in February 2019 concerning 26 Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Tamankar alleges that while the report reportedly gave a clean chit to only seven officers, the Directorate of Transport subsequently ordered a de novo inquiry in 2023 against 19 others, describing the earlier findings as ambiguous and inconclusive.

Tamankar has questioned how the same inquiry report could be considered unreliable for initiating a fresh inquiry against 19 officials while simultaneously being relied upon to grant career progression benefits to seven others. He argues that such selective interpretation raises serious concerns regarding fairness, consistency and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The complaint further alleges that several of the officers who were granted benefits had obtained experience certificates from the same source as some of those still facing inquiry, raising questions about the criteria used to differentiate between the two groups.

Tamankar has also claimed that the department is proceeding with MACP benefits despite the recruitment-related inquiries and criminal proceedings not having reached a final conclusion. He contends that granting financial and promotional benefits in such circumstances could potentially cause losses to the public exchequer.

In his representation to the ACB, Tamankar has requested an investigation into the actions of the Transport Department officials involved in the decision-making process and has sought examination of whether the grant of MACP benefits to only seven Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors was lawful, justified and free from bias.

The complainant has urged the Anti-Corruption Bureau to examine the entire process and take appropriate action if any irregularities, favoritism or misuse of official authority are found during the inquiry.