CHENNAI: A techie who had filed a complaint against Tiruttani Sub-Registrar for asking `10,000 as bribe to register a property, has contested the probe procedure, saying it was not fair.
Claiming that he was not given an opportunity to submit evidence through audio tapes to support his allegations, the complainant, a software engineer and an anti-corruption activist, has filed an appeal with Inspector General of Registration.
About two years ago, P Senthil Kumar of Iyappanthangal had approached the Sub-Registrar Office (SRO) in Tiruttani, Tiruvallur district, in August 2015 to register partition deeds for two different properties in Tiruttani and Perambakkam.
He was allegedly made to run from pillar to post. “I finally gave in and paid `10,000 as bribe sought by the officials,” he said.
Express had quoted Senthil in an earlier report on June 2016 highlighting his plight in registering his own properties for seven months. According to government norms, 15 days is the maximum time SROs could take to register a property document.
The Sub-Registrar asked Senthil to pay an additional stamp duty of `1,200 to register his Perambakkam property. Senthil saw in it a ruse to justify the delay in registering his property and slapped a legal notice against Sub-Registrar Chandran.
The registration department had ordered an inter-departmental probe and both the parties were invited for the first round of enquiry on October 2016. “Investigating officer V Vasuki, Deputy Inspector General, Registration Department, collected preliminary statements and assured that the rest would be discussed during second round of enquiry,” said Senthil.
The techie in his statement had said that a woman named Hema, who presented herself as a registered document writer, brokered the deal with the Tiruttani Sub-Registrar.
While Senthil was preparing to submit more evidences in his next round of enquiry, he received a copy of the final enquiry report from the investigating officer giving a clean chit to the Sub-Registrar. The report went on state that there was no person named Hema who had registered with them as a document writer.
Challenging the report, the petitioner filed an appeal with IGR, the top most authority in the department on March 30. “I have submitted audio tapes as evidence to prove my claim that the woman brokered the deal with the Sub-Registrar,” said Senthil. He also requested IGR to take action against the investigating officer for trying to cover up the issue. Despite repeated attempts, SRO and DIG were unavailable for comment.