Ayodhya: Serious allegations of administrative irregularities have surfaced in the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department in Ayodhya, following an inquiry into a complaint filed through the Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS). The investigation has reportedly uncovered multiple procedural violations related to transfers and file processing, raising concerns about transparency and adherence to established government norms.
Files Processed Without Formal Proposals
According to the findings, several transfer-related files were moved forward without the mandatory recommendations of the Chief Food Safety Officer. The inquiry indicates that between 2023 and 2025, a number of transfer cases were processed without following the prescribed administrative procedure, prompting questions about the department’s internal functioning and accountability.
Alleged Violation of Government Guidelines
The report further states that while compliance with government orders was officially claimed in several cases, the supporting procedural documentation was either incomplete or absent from the relevant files. Investigators noted discrepancies between official records and the procedures that were supposed to have been followed, raising concerns about departmental transparency and regulatory compliance.
Questions Over Repeated Jurisdiction Changes
The inquiry also examined the repeated transfer and reassignment of a departmental officer. As per applicable norms, annual transfers were expected to take place; however, the report suggests that the prescribed rules were not consistently followed. These deviations have been highlighted as another area of concern in the department’s administrative practices.
Inquiry Confirms Procedural Lapses
The investigation report reportedly concludes that for the past three years, files were prepared and processed without adhering to the established procedures. It further notes that senior officials may not have been provided with complete or accurate information regarding these matters. Based on the findings, the complaint has been found to have merit.
Focus Shifts to Possible Action
With the inquiry report confirming irregularities, attention has now turned to the possibility of departmental action against those found responsible. The revelations have sparked renewed scrutiny of administrative processes within the department, and stakeholders are closely watching to see what corrective or disciplinary measures may follow.
The case has highlighted the importance of procedural transparency and accountability in public administration, particularly in departments responsible for regulatory oversight and public welfare.
