PSIEC plot scam comes under ED lens

Rajmeet Singh

Chandigarh, February 9

The Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation (PSIEC) plot allotment scam has come under the scanner of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Vigilance Bureau (VB) is already investigating the matter, apart from registering a criminal case against corporation officials in connection with the bifurcation of a 25-acre industrial plot for setting Gulmohar Township in Mohali.

The ED, in its communication to the Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce, and the Managing Director, PSIEC, had sought details of the industrial plots allotted since 2012, details of inquiry conducted by the corporation or any other enforcement agency along with any FIR registered in the matter.

The VB is also probing into the missing official document wherein then CM Capt Amarinder Singh had — in 2019 — ordered the formation of a three-member committee to probe the complicity of the PSIEC.

In the document, the former CM had sought to examine findings of the VB that had asked for permission from the PSIEC MD to book six corporation officials for their alleged role in the allotment of industrial plots to their kin and acquaintances.

Sources in the government said due to sensitivity of the matter and ED being a central agency, the Department of Industries and Commerce has referred the matter to the Chief Secretary for necessary orders.

The VB probe into the industrial plot allotment case has seen a lot of heartburning between the state enforcement agency and the state bureaucracy over naming of IAS officer Neelima in the bifurcation case. The officer was posted as the Managing Director (MD) of the PSIEC when the bifurcation of the plot was allowed to a real estate developer.

The IAS Officers’ Association had been up in arms against the registration of an FIR against the officer.

With an “assurance” that she would not be arrested, the IAS officer is expected to appear before VB sleuths over the alleged irregularities in the bifurcation of plots. The PSIEC — in its reply to the state government and VB — had categorically stated that the property is a freehold private property and that the government has no right on it other than monitoring that the property is used for industrial purpose and to see that it follows the estate management rules.