Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has cleared nine officers of corruption allegations in a selection process for jail sepoys in Mumbai. Justice Sandeep Marne decided in favour of the officers accused of manipulating scores of chosen candidates at the request of higher-ranking officials.
The fired officials, including clerks and prison superintendents from different prisons in western Maharashtra, were involved in a case from 2006. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a FIR against Dhanaji Choudhari, former Deputy Inspector General of Prison (Western Region) in Pune, along with his personal secretary Nirmala Jadhav and establishment clerk Chand Dadasaheb Mulla.
What ACB Claims?
The ACB claimed that the three individuals conspired to commit crimes including forgery, falsifying records, and significant corruption while selecting candidates for 67 jail sepoy positions. The ACB later accused the nine officers in its chargesheet, stating that they altered the scores of specific candidates based on Choudhari's orders. The alleged manipulation involved the selection process, including a physical exam worth 100 marks, a written exam worth 80 marks, and an interview worth 20 marks. The ACB stated that certain candidates were given extra points in the physical exam sections, with changes made to written exam responses to give specific candidates more marks.
The ACB claimed that incorrect merit lists were created, purposely removing names of 19 candidates and substituting them with 19 candidates who were not selected. This complete task was supposedly done as per Choudhari's request. The nine officials had previously requested for dismissal of prosecution, which was denied by a Pune court in August 2014. Nevertheless, the higher court noted that the ACB did not accuse these officials of purposely intending to conduct any illegal activity by choosing specific candidates. After reviewing the case documents, the court observed that the decision was made by the First Accused (Choudhari).
Additionally, the court emphasized that there were no accusations of the nine officers gaining any financial benefit. The ACB was found to have insufficient evidence to support the claims against the officers, as noted by the high court. It was determined that the special judge overseeing the case did not take these factors into account, leading to a flawed previous ruling. As a result, the nine officers were acquitted of charges.
