TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of IAS officer in job selection corruption case, orders CBI probe for influential individuals</h1> <h3>Sanjiv Kumar Versus State of Haryana And Others</h3> The court, in a case involving corruption in job selections, ruled in favor of the petitioner, an IAS officer pressured to substitute candidate lists. The ... - Issues:Corruption in job selection process; Pressure on petitioner to substitute candidate lists; Transfer and subsequent actions against petitioner; Petition seeking investigation and protection; Proposal for Commission of Inquiry; Counter-allegations against petitioner; Decision to entrust investigation to CBI; Transfer of related matters to CBI; Timely completion of investigation; Stay on departmental inquiries; Review of police protection; Disposal of petition.Corruption in Job Selection Process:The case highlighted rampant corruption in job selections within the government. The petitioner, an IAS officer, was pressured to substitute candidate lists for JBT teachers in Haryana. Despite completing the selection process, the original lists were not released until the petitioner intervened, leading to appointments based on the genuine list.Pressure on Petitioner to Substitute Candidate Lists:The petitioner, while holding the post of Director, Primary Education, was coerced to replace original candidate lists with false ones prepared by influential individuals. Refusing to comply, the petitioner faced threats and ultimately released the genuine lists, resulting in his subsequent transfer.Transfer and Subsequent Actions Against Petitioner:Following the petitioner's exposure of the corruption, he was transferred from his post. This move raised concerns about potential retaliation and safety risks for the petitioner and his family members, prompting the petition seeking investigation and protection under Article 32 of the Constitution.Petition Seeking Investigation and Protection:The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions for investigation into the corrupt practices and protection for himself and his family. The court directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to provide adequate police protection and ordered the preservation of crucial documents submitted by the petitioner.Proposal for Commission of Inquiry:While the respondents suggested a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the matter, the court expressed reservations about the efficacy of such commissions in delivering timely and effective outcomes, especially in cases involving influential individuals. The court favored entrusting the investigation to the CBI due to its independence and public trust.Decision to Entrust Investigation to CBI:Considering the nature of the allegations and the involvement of influential figures, the court decided to entrust the investigation to the CBI for its independence and investigative capabilities. The court emphasized the need for a thorough and timely investigation to uncover the truth and hold the guilty parties accountable.Transfer of Related Matters to CBI:In addition to the primary case, the court directed the transfer of several related matters involving the petitioner to the CBI for investigation, emphasizing the importance of expeditiously completing the inquiries and disclosing any offenses uncovered during the process.Timely Completion of Investigation:The court set a timeframe of six months for the completion of the investigation by the CBI, urging for prompt and efficient progress to ensure justice and accountability. The directive aimed to prevent undue delays and ensure a swift resolution of the case.Stay on Departmental Inquiries:To safeguard the petitioner's ability to cooperate with the CBI investigation without interference, the court ordered a stay on any departmental inquiries initiated by the State of Haryana against the petitioner until the CBI investigation was concluded.Review of Police Protection:The court mandated periodic reviews of the police protection provided to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, allowing for adjustments based on the evolving security situation and the petitioner's safety needs.Disposal of Petition:After addressing all relevant issues and directives, the court disposed of the petition, granting parties the liberty to seek further directions through appropriate applications as necessary. The court clarified that its statements were based on pleadings and not intended as findings or reflections on any party involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
