TWO former telecom ministry officials DS Mathur and Manju Madhavan who reportedly refused to toe ex-telecom minister A Raja’s dictates on 2G spectrum allocations, would appear before the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee to present their views on the issue. The PAC headed by BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi asked former telecom secretary DS Mathur and former member (finance) in Telecom Commission Manju Madhavan, a 1971 batch IRS officer to appear before it on January 21 to give their viewpoints on the irregularities on awarding licenses three years ago.
Mathur, who retired as secretary only on
December 31, 2007, had claimed while interacting with media later that minister Raja was determined to grant licenses despite several irregularities were spotted.
Mathur further claimed that he refused to sign the files, and the allocations were done only days after he had resigned. In fact, Siddhartha Behura, a 1973 batch UP cadre IAS who joined the ministry as the telecom secretary on
December 31, 2007, signed the controversial 2G licences announced on the second week of January, 2008.
November 19, 2010, BoI (babusofindia.com) wrote how 1971 batch IRS officer Manju Madhavan flagged the 2G scam over three years ago. She actually mentioned in a note that proposed prices were too low if compared to the prevailing market forces.
A doctorate of psychology, Manju Madhavan attended a programme on fiscal de-centralization and financial management of regional and local governments at
, and then a management development programme at IIM, Harvard University . Both Manju Madhavan and then telecom secretary DS Mathur reportedly objected to then telecom minister A Raja’s decision to deliberately determine the cut-off date for receiving applications as October 1, 2007.” Bangalore
Centre defends CVC appointmentThe Central government has once again defended the appointment of 1973 batch Kerala cadre IAS PJ Thomas, facing a corruption case in a two-decade-old corruption case, as Central Vigilance Commissioner. In an affidavit in the Supreme Court, Thomas was termed as an “outstanding officer” with “impeccable integrity”. The affidavit said that Thomas’ suitability for the post should not be decided by the apex court, and it should be left to the wisdom of the appointing authority.