Mysuru: CID holds Mysuru Agriculture Department officials responsible

Mysuru : In a significant turn of events, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has apprehended two officials from the Agriculture Department in Mysuru in relation to a controversial letter that alleged corruption against Agriculture Minister N Chaluvarayaswamy and was addressed to Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot. The CID’s investigation has prompted the detainment of Assistant Director Gurudatt and Agriculture Officer Shivaprasad, both of whom are affiliated with the Agriculture Department in K R Nagar, Mysuru district.

The investigation unveiled that the contentious letter, which implicated Chaluvarayaswamy in alleged corruption activities, was dispatched from a post office in Mysuru. The missive purported to be authored collectively by seven Assistant Directors of the Agriculture Department hailing from Mandya. This letter claimed that Chaluvarayaswamy, in coordination with the Joint Director, had purportedly demanded monetary exchanges for favourable postings. The growing clamour for accountability from the Opposition led Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to entrust the case to the CID. The CID’s diligent efforts revealed that the letter’s point of origin was the Saraswathipuram Post Office in Mysuru, ultimately leading to the detention of the two aforementioned officials after intensive questioning.

Despite these developments, the roles played by the detained officials in the creation and dissemination of the letter remain unclear. Minister Chaluvarayaswamy was swift to disavow the letter’s authenticity, labelling it as ‘fake’. While the CID focuses on unearthing the origins of the letter and those responsible for its creation, questions surrounding the involvement of the detained officials persist.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, Mandya’s Joint Director has also entered the fray by submitting a formal request to the Superintendent of Police, advocating for a thorough investigation. The Joint Director highlighted a critical discrepancy, noting that while the letter bore the purported signatures of seven Assistant Directors, only four officers occupy the mentioned positions, and three posts remain vacant within the district.

As the CID’s investigation presses forward, it promises to shed light on the intricate web of allegations, implicating not only the contents of the ‘fake’ letter but also the individuals entangled in its creation and dissemination. The outcome of this inquiry stands to impact not only the credibility of the accused officials but also the larger discourse on accountability and integrity within the corridors of power.