NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday extended the interim protection from arrest for suspended trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar. The extension remains in effect till August 29.
Former trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar is accused of falsifying and misrepresenting facts in her application to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The court had instructed the investigation agency not to arrest her while the matter is under consideration, noting that immediate arrest is not deemed necessary.
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court has deferred the hearing on suspended IAS officer Pooja Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea to August 29, 2024. The deferral was due to the Delhi Police’s reply not being filed on record yet.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Khedkar, also requested additional time to review the UPSC’s response, which opposes the anticipatory bail plea. On last date of hearing, the Delhi High Court had issued notices to the Delhi Police and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) regarding the anticipatory bail plea of suspended IAS officer Puja Khedkar.
The Delhi High Court earlier observed that the trial court’s order denying bail for Puja Khedkar lacks substantial discussion, with only a brief mention of the Public Prosecutor’s claim about the involvement of others. The High Court has instructed the police not to arrest Khedkar until Friday, pending further proceedings.
The UPSC had argued that Puja Khedkar is a “mastermind” and that her actions would not have been possible without the assistance of others. This argument supports their position that custodial interrogation is necessary.
Puja Khedkar’s plea in Delhi High Court follows the dismissal of her plea by Delhi’s Patiala House Court last week, which found the allegations against her — related to falsifying identity for extra attempts in the civil services examination — to be serious and in need of thorough investigation. The trial court judge said, custodial interrogation of the accused is required to unearth the whole conspiracy and to establish involvement of the other persons involved in conspiracy.
“In the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretionary powers of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused”, Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala said. The court noted that in the present case the applicant/accused has been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC and 66D IT Act and 89/91 Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. The applicant/accused has cheated the complainant by misrepresentation.
The complainant/UPSC in, order to attain the misrepresentation, has got prepared various documents to support her claim. The conspiracy has been hatched in a pre-planned manner. The conspiracy was executed by the applicant/accused in many years, said the court.
The applicant/accused alone could not have executed the conspiracy without the assistance of some outsider or insider. It is also contended by lawyer for Delhi Police that the OBC (non creamy layer) status and person with multiple benchmark disability is also under scrutiny and investigation, noted the court.
The court futher said, the complainant/UPSC being a Constitutional body, is conducting the exams for the prestigious posts to which the aspirants from the whole country are applying. Therefore, the complainant is required to maintain highest degree of transparency and fairness in its standard operating procedure.
It is an admitted case of the complainant also that its standard operating procedure (SOP) has been breached by the applicant/accused,therefore, the complainant should introspect because its scrutiny system hasfails to curb the breach. The present case may be only tip of the iceberg because if the applicant/accused can breach the scrutiny system of the complainant, why not others. Therefore, in order to maintain reputation,fairness, sanctity and faith of aspirants and general public, there is need on the part of the complainant to strengthen its SOP to ensure that such an event does not occur in future.
The complainant also needs to relook its recommendations made in the recent past to find out the candidates (a) who have illegally availed the attempts beyond permissible limits; (b) who have obtained the OBC (non-creamy layer) benefit despite not being entitled; (c) who had obtained the benefits of persons with benchmark disability, despite being not entitled, said the court.
The investigating agency also needs to widen its scope of investigation. Hence, the investigating agency is directed to conduct its investigation in all fairness to find out the candidates recommended in recent past (a) who have illegally availed the attempts beyond permissible limits;(b) who have obtained the OBC (non-creamy layer) benefit, despite not being entitled; (c) who had obtained the benefits of persons with benchmark disability, despite being not entitled and (d) the investigating agency shall also find out whether some insider from the complainant side has also helped the applicant to attain her illegal goals, stated the court.
Recently, the Delhi High Court has granted liberty to former probationary IAS Puja Khedkar to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the cancellation of her candidature. (ANI)