LUCKNOW: The Uttar Pradesh Medical Supply Corporation has come under close scrutiny after the Enforcement Directorate sought records of its medicine and equipment procurements, tendering procedures, and overall expenditures spanning the past seven years. The agency’s intervention coincides with a string of high-level administrative exits, during which three general managers ceased to serve the state-run procurement body within six months following the termination or non-renewal of their service contracts. While allegations of irregularities in multi-crore medical purchases continue to circle the corporation, authorities have not officially linked the contract terminations directly to the federal agency’s ongoing inquiry.
Administrative Reshuffle and Contract Exits
The administrative changes began in June when the corporation terminated the services of Ujjwal Kumar, General Manager (Equipment). Soon after, the service contracts of Mohammad Shoaib, General Manager (HL), and Sugandha Sharma, General Manager (Supply Chain), were not renewed, marking the departure of three key divisional heads in quick succession. The corporation also terminated the services of Accounts Officer Shikha Rai, while Dr. A.K. Tripathi, Senior Adviser for Drug Supply Chain and Quality, was transferred to Sitapur. Internal recommendations had also sought the removal of a finance officer and another adviser, but that action was deferred following an assessment by the corporation’s legal cell. The exact grounds for those recommendations and the legal cell’s findings remain undisclosed.
Scrutiny of Seven Years of Procurement Records
As the sole nodal agency supplying medicines and surgical equipment to government healthcare facilities across Uttar Pradesh, the corporation handles purchasing decisions that directly impact public health services and state expenditure. The Enforcement Directorate’s demand for comprehensive tendering files, supplier details, and billing records over a seven-year timeline brings past transactions under intense focus. Current disclosures do not name the specific procurement contracts, tenders, or officials under the agency’s primary lens, nor do they detail the precise nature of the suspected financial irregularities. The convergence of federal scrutiny and internal staff terminations has nonetheless prompted widespread debate over whether the personnel decisions represent routine administrative processes or a targeted departmental cleanup.
Questions Over the Timing of Dismissal Orders
Internal procedures have drawn particular attention in the case of Sugandha Sharma, the former General Manager (Supply Chain). The order terminating her service was dated October 1 and reportedly signed by the managing director serving at the time, who was subsequently transferred on October 3. Sharma stated that she received the communication on October 5, maintaining that her contract was discontinued despite her meeting required performance benchmarks. Although the timeline between the order’s drafting, the managing director’s transfer, and the final notification has raised administrative questions, official documents and departmental explanations will ultimately be required to clarify whether proper service conditions and renewal procedures were observed.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
