Latest news with #Section120-B
Hindustan Times
04-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
8 booked for anomalies in recruitment of 2 asst teachers, clerk at Sultanpur school
LUCKNOW The UP Vigilance Establishment has booked eight people, including a former basic shiksha adhikari (BSA) and former block education officer (BEO) of Sultanpur, for alleged irregularities in the recruitment of two assistant teachers and a clerk at a government-aided school in Sultanpur's Kadipur area around 10 years ago, said authorities. The FIR was lodged by vigilance inspector Dhruv Chand Maurya at Ayodhya sector police station of vigilance on July 1 (Tuesday). (Pic for representation) It was alleged that the two assistant teachers, Ranjana Singh and Veer Vikram Singh, and clerk Vijay Vikram Singh, were family members and relatives of the then members of the school management committee, who died or quit the committee before and after the appointments were done. Moreover, around ₹28 lakh bribe was paid to different people involved in the process of recruitment, the FIR stated. The investigation was ordered by the government about four years ago, following complaints of irregularities in the recruitment process. The vigilance's investigation found that the school management committee had manipulated the recruitment process to favour unqualified candidates. The FIR was lodged by vigilance inspector Dhruv Chand Maurya at Ayodhya sector police station of vigilance on July 1 (Tuesday). He conducted an open inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of two assistant teachers and a clerk as per the government order issued in the matter in 2022. The complainant alleged the involvement of Ramesh Kumar Yadav (former BSA), Omkar Singh (former BEO) Rajendra Kumar Saroj (former principal), Veer Vikram Singh and Ranjana Singh (assistant teachers), Vijay Vikram Singh (clerk) and Achhelal Singh (member of the management committee) in the irregularities. They were booked under sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy. The complainant mentioned in the FIR that the alleged irregularities were conducted at Maharana Pratap School of Katsaari village in Sultanpur's Kadipur. The investigation found that some members of the school management committee manipulated the recruitment process to favour unqualified candidates. He said the school recruited teachers for arts subjects despite having a vacancy for a science teacher. The degrees and other documents of eligible candidates were tampered with and three eligible candidates' BSc degrees were altered to BA degrees, and they were not even called for an interview, it was alleged. Approximately ₹28 lakh was allegedly taken as bribe for giving jobs to relatives, he added.
Hindustan Times
04-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Punjab and Haryana chief justice recuses from Gurugram builder trial
Punjab and Haryana high court chief justice Sheel Nagu on Thursday recused himself from hearing a petition filed by a Gurugram builder that sought to quash an FIR in a corruption case. Gavel and law books (Getty Images/iStockphoto/ Representational image) The move came after the petitioner's lawyer raised objection to the chief justice continuing to hear the case. Chief justice Nagu on May 10 in an administrative order had withdrawn the case from another judge who was set to pronounce the final judgment and listed it before his own bench. The withdrawal was prompted by 'oral and written complaints', chief justice Nagu had said. The petition filed by real estate firm M3M's director Roop Bansal seeks to quash an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar. During subsequent hearings, the petitioner's counsel objected to the withdrawal of the case but the chief justice had maintained that the decision was taken to 'preserve the dignity and honour of the institution' and to 'protect the reputation' of the judge. On Thursday, appearing for the builder, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that he had instructions from his client to 'raise objection' to the chief justice continuing to hear the case. 'It is our duty to advise the court on principle. There are innumerable examples where the chief justice of India has refused to deal with the case on the judicial side when it has dealt with it on the administrative side. ..best example is also administrative judges who never deal with the cases which they have dealt on administrative duty,' Singhvi said. On the other hand, Zohair Husaain, counsel for ED, which has sought impleadment in the case, said what the office of chief justice does on the administrative side 'never comes in the way of the judicial side.' However, in view of the submissions, the chief justice ordered the listing of the case before some other bench. ED's interest in the case comes from the fact that Parmar was presiding over ED court and ED is investigating Bansal. The case stems from an April 2023 FIR, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who was then special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Bansal and others who were accused in some FIRs being investigated by CBI and ED, pending before his court.
United News of India
27-06-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
ACB files chargesheet against two in 2022 bribery case
Srinagar, June 27 (UNI) The Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) today filed a chargesheet against two government employees - one of them retired - before the Court of Additional Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, in connection with a 2022 bribery case. The chargesheet was produced against Jamil Hussain Khan, then Patwari Halqa Baghat-e-shoor, Owanta Bhawan, Soura, Tehsil Eidgah and Shafat-ur-Rehman Bhat, a retired Patwari. Khan has been charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Bhat faces charges under Section 12 of the same act and the conspiracy provision of Section 120-B IPC. ACB said the instant case was initiated following a complaint alleging that Khan, through his associate Bhat, demanded a bribe of Rs 9,000 for processing revenue documents related to land records. Acting on the complaint, a trap was laid by the ACB on April 11, 2022, resulting in the recovery of the tainted bribe amount from the accused. After registration of the case at police station ACB Srinagar Kashmir, the investigation was concluded as proved against the accused and after the accord of government sanction for launching prosecution, the challan of the case was produced before the court of Additional Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar today for judicial determination. The next date of hearing is fixed on August 13. The ACB said that Bhat was already convicted in a corruption case registered against him in 2009. UNI MJR SSP
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC dismisses plea from ex-CBI judge Parmar in disciplinary proceedings
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has dismissed a petition filed by former CBI special court judge Sudhir Parmar in a disciplinary proceedings case arising out of April 2023 criminal case. The HC bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice HS Grewal ruled that a delinquent judicial officer has no right to submit a reply to the chargesheet beyond the outer limit of 45 days as mandated by the rules. Now, the court has set a deadline of six months and 25 days as the outer limit for completion of all current and future disciplinary proceedings. It said, failure to adhere to the same would invite punitive action against the inquiry officer or any other erring personnel of the high court, it added. The petition was from Parmar, a suspended officer, seeking directions to the court's administrative side to allow filing of a reply to the chargesheet slapped on him at a belated stage. Parmar was booked in an FIR, under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in April 2023. At that point of time, he was special CBI judge, Panchkula, and was accused of alleged favouritism towards some real estate developers, being probed by CBI and ED. FIRs pertaining to them were pending before the court presided over by Parmar. However, he failed to submit reply within the given time frame. He was suspended on April 27, 2023, and issued a chargesheet on July 24, 2023. The court observed that as per Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016, upon being issued chargesheet, the delinquent employee has to submit his response within an outer limit of 45 days. However, he failed to do so. '..the inquiry officer ought to have proceeded ex-parte against the delinquent employee on his failure to file the written statement of defence and proceeded to examine the witnesses and the documents produced by the employer instead of adjourning the proceedings repeatedly on one pretext or the other,' the court observed with a direction to the inquiry officer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by submitting the inquiry report as early as possible. Thereafter, the high court should also make its recommendations expeditiously, it said further asking the court's administration to ensure that in all ongoing as well as disciplinary inquiries to be initiated in the future, the timeline is adhered to.
