Mysuru: In a significant twist of events, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has apprehended two officials from the Mysuru Agriculture Department in connection with a contentious letter that levied corruption allegations against Agriculture Minister N. Chaluvarayaswamy. The letter, addressed to Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, raised suspicions and prompted a comprehensive investigation by the CID. Assistant Director Gurudatt and Agriculture Officer Shivaprasad, both linked to the Agriculture Department in K. R. Nagar, Mysuru District, are now under detention.
Investigations uncovered that the controversial missive, accusing Chaluvarayaswamy of corrupt practices, was dispatched from a Mysuru Post Office. The letter purported to be a collaborative effort by seven Assistant Directors of the Agriculture Department, all hailing from Mandya. The allegations within the letter suggested that Chaluvarayaswamy, along with the Joint Director, had allegedly sought financial gratification in exchange for favorable appointments.
Amidst growing calls for accountability from the Opposition, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah entrusted the case to the CID for thorough examination. The CID’s rigorous scrutiny traced the origins of the letter back to the Saraswathipuram Post Office in Mysuru, eventually leading to the detention of the two aforementioned officials after extensive interrogation.
Nevertheless, the exact roles played by the detained officials in the creation and dissemination of the letter remain shrouded in ambiguity. Minister Chaluvarayaswamy promptly denounced the authenticity of the letter, dismissing it as ‘false’. As the CID delves into the task of unraveling the origins of the letter and identifying those accountable for its fabrication, the involvement of the detained individuals remains a subject of inquiry.
Further complicating matters, the Joint Director of Mandya submitted a formal plea to the Superintendent of Police, advocating for a comprehensive investigation. The Joint Director pointed out a significant inconsistency, highlighting that while the letter bore the alleged signatures of seven Assistant Directors, only four officers held the specified positions, leaving three positions vacant within the district.
As the CID’s investigation progresses, it promises to cast light not only on the intricate details of the ‘forged’ letter but also on the individuals implicated in its creation and dissemination. The outcome of this inquiry holds the potential to impact not just the reputation of the implicated officials, but also the broader discussions on accountability and ethical conduct within the echelons of authority.