Promotion of HCS officers: Eight officers facing trial not to be promoted till exonerated by court
Officials said that the eight HCS officers who are facing trial were included provisionally in the select list for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) by way of promotion. 'This, as per the central rules, means that they cannot be promoted to the IAS unless exonerated by the court,' said an official. A select list is a roll of officers recommended for induction into IAS.
Officials said that the selection committee also prepared a list of 18 HCS officers who are found suitable for promotion to the IAS. Thus, their names were included in the select list for appointment to the IAS. These included Vivek Padam Singh of 1997 batch, Munish Nagpal, Mahender Pal and Satpal Sharma of the 2002 batch, Sushil Kumar of 2003 batch, Varsha Khangwal, Virender Sehrawat, Satyender Duhan, Manita Malik, Satbir Singh, Amrita Singh, Yogesh Kumar, Vandana Disodia, Jaideep Kumar, Samwartak Singh Khangwal.
Criminal proceedings pending against 8 HCS officers
The state anti-corruption bureau (ACB) had on July 4, 2023 presented a chargesheet (under section 173 of the CrPC) in the court of Hisar sessions judge, Dinesh Kumar Mittal, arraigning these eight HCS officers of 2002 batch as accused. They are Veena Hooda, Surender Singh-1, Jagdeep Dhanda, Sarita Malik, Kamlesh Bhadoo, Kuldhir Singh, Vatsal Vashisht and Jag Niwas. They were arraigned in a case pertaining to alleged irregularities and malpractices by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) in the recruitment process of 2001 HCS and Allied Services (executive branch) examination. A total of 29 persons including six former HPSC functionaries, four allied services officers and nine paper checkers were also arraigned in the charge-sheet.
On a petition filed by one of the eight HCS officers facing trial, Jagdeep Dhanda, the Punjab and Haryana high court had on July 11 stayed the operation and effect of the charge sheet with regards to Dhanda. But the UPSC led selection committee did not consider Dhanda's case for appointment and decided to put his name in the select list as provisional along with his other batchmates.
Legal experts said that a mere stay by the court on the operation and effect of the charge sheet filed by ACB did not mean that the officer became eligible for appointment to IAS. 'The charge sheet has been stayed and not quashed by the high court. Surely, the trial will come to a halt. But promoting an officer on the basis of a stay by the court can create more complications like reverting the officer back to HCS if the stay is vacated by the high court,' said Punjab and Haryana high court lawyer, Sachin Jain.
Jain said the UPSC adopted the best way possible by keeping the name of the officer in the select list as provisional pending the outcome of the petition in HC or trial court.
Rule 5(5) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations stipulated that the name of an officer included in the list of officers will be treated as provisional if any departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against him. 'The proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a court,' reads the explanation to the Rule. Similarly, Rule 7(3) said that if an officer included in the select list is issued with a charge sheet or a charge sheet is filed against him in a court of law after his inclusion, then his name in the select list shall be deemed to be provisional. In a nutshell, it means that officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending cannot be considered for promotion to the IAS unless exonerated by the court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Bhopal gas disaster convicts seek retrial citing flawed investigation
Bhopal: Appearing in the court of the Principal District Judge for two convicts in the Bhopal gas disaster criminal case, J Mukund and S P Chaudhary, senior counsel Anirban Roy on Tuesday presented a compilation of several cases in which the high courts and the Supreme Court of India allowed a retrial of a case under section 464 of the CrPC. All seven Indian officials of Union Carbide accused in the Bhopal gas disaster criminal case were sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment by the CJM court in 2010 and were released on bail from the court itself. They later appealed against the CJM court order in the sessions court in 2011, and the hearing in the case has continued since. Anirban Roy, who appeared for J Mukund and S P Chaudhary, maintained through the hearings that the investigation by the CBI in the gas disaster case was "malafide, malicious, motivated and fraudulent." He moved an application under section 468 of the CrPC seeking a retrial in the case, as the charges framed against the accused by the trial court were based on a botched-up CBI investigation. Following lengthy arguments over days during hearings of the case in support of his argument for a retrial, Roy on Tuesday presented a compilation of cases in the court in which various high courts and the Supreme Court allowed a retrial in cases under section 464 of the CrPC. The hearing in the case would continue on Wednesday.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Companies affected in IPR cases can press criminal charges as 'victim': SC
The Supreme Court has held that a company can be called a 'victim'' under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it can file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including violations of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This means that corporate entities affected by violations of such rights could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused allegedly selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paints under the brand name 'Asian Paints'. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints and not the company was the 'complainant' and therefore the latter couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court Bench held it was clear that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning'. 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paints industry for over 73 years, had engaged IPR consultancy firm M/s Solution to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm had found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop Ganpati Traders in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by Ram Babu. After police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Firms affected by IPR violations could press criminal charges as victim: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that a company can be called a 'victim' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including intellectual property rights (IPR) violations. This means that corporate entities affected by IPR violations could now pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court's judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints, and not the company, was the "complainant", and therefore the company could not file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the present case. ALSO READ: The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court bench held that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning.' 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold or attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products were bought by the public under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the apex court judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, had engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by the accused Ram Babu. After a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the decision in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal, prompting the company to move the Supreme Court. Advocate Ajay Singh and his team from Singh Law Chambers represented Asian Paints (petitioner), while Advocate Thakur Sumit and others appeared for the respondents.
