Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 10: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu, Sanjay Dhar today rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarsem Lal, Chief Education Officer Jammu, who was booked by the State Vigilance Organization for bungling in selection of Class IV employees.
According to the Vigilance case, during the Joint Surprise Check it came to fore that 90 candidates were selected as Class IV employees and out of these 15 candidates had not even submitted their application forms before the concerned Zonal Education Officer in pursuance to the advertisement notice.
In respect of 13 selected candidates, academic marks/points were fraudulently increased in order to confer undue benefit upon them, the Vigilance said, adding six candidates did not appear for the interview and despite this they were selected by raising their academic marks/points.
According to the Vigilance findings, 33 undeserving candidates figured in the select list issued by petitioner in his capacity as Chief Education Officer, Jammu.
After hearing CPO Harminder Singh for the State, Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu observed, “petitioner being Chief Education Officer of district Jammu was a key figure in making the selection of candidates, as such, his role in the whole affair comes under the scanner. The allegations against him are of very serious nature and cannot be termed as minor errors made in routine official functioning”.
“The allegations that some of the selected candidates had not even applied pursuant to the advertisement notice and academic marks/points of some of the selected candidates were fraudulently increased raise serious issues as regards the motive and role of petitioner”, the court said, adding “the accusations against petitioner are grave in nature and his role in the whole affair appears to be of paramount importance so far as the investigation of the case is concerned”.
“It is true that petitioner is a district level officer but it is also a fact that being head of his office he has control over the records. In order to unravel the magnitude of the fraud and collect the evidence regarding the allegations made in the FIR, the relevant record of Chief Education Office, Jammu has to be seized”, the court said, adding “the investigation of the case is at its inception and identity and roles of various other actors is yet to be established”.
“The same can be done only after seizure and scanning of record. The prosecution has submitted that for this purpose custodial interrogation of accused is necessary. There is a reasonable apprehension that if petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail, he may influence the subordinate officials of the department who are conversant with the record and facts of the case”, the court said, adding “even otherwise, in the cases of corruption at high places, an order of anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless very compelling circumstances are made out”.
With these observations, court rejected the bail application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel