On 29th August 2024, the high court of delhi granted insider licensed officer puja khedkar, interim stay on arrest puja khedkar’s pranjal jha suspended organisational structure of assigned librarian. As the argument is, this will now hold till the more date comes upon the case on September 05.
The hearing on the anticipatory bail petition moved by the suspended IAS officer Puja Khedkar has been posted by Justice Subramonium Prasad for hearing on 5th September. This deferral was particularly due to the Delhi Police sough time to go through the rejoinder filed by the applicant Puja Khedkar and to file fresh status report.
Thus, puja khedkar who has been alleged of forgery and misusing the OBC and disability quotas by her rejoinder in the high court of delhi stated that the commission cannot disqualify her since it has no jurisdiction to do so overholders of the un and speaks.
Ms. Khedkar claimed that the UPSC that supervises the civil services examination does possess jurisdiction disqualifying candidates in the cases of such matters. Earlier, this same Bench of the Delhi high court has already issued notices on the anticipatory bail plea of the suspended IAS officer, Puja Khedkar to the Delhi Police as well as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The court also directed the agency to refrain from arresting her while considering the mater saying that there was no need to effect arrest at the moment.
The Delhi High Court previously noted that arguments for or against bail for Puja Khedkar made in a trial court were unsatisfactory and the trial courts order denying bail for her was very much brief with little elaboration offered as to why bail ought not to be granted to Khedkar. The High Court has given an order to the police that they may not arrest Khedkar till Friday when she is likely to return and other prayers are made.
UPSC had maintained that Puja Khedkar’s is a ‘master mind’ and that without help from other people, such activities would not have been possible for Puja Khedkar. This argument supports their position that custodial interrogation would be elicited.
The circumstances surrounding the Delhi High Court are no different than the circumstances surrounding the Delhi Patiala House Court’s ruling dismissing her plea last week and irrelevant considering the seriousness of her allegations against her – Misrepresentation of identity in order to gain additional chances at the Civil Services Examination.
However in this particular case the trial court Judge has observed that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for proper investigation of the conspiracy and also for identifying other persons who are part of that conspiracy. Fought Over in a case like this, which has so many ugly facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the discretion to grant anticipatory bail in favor of the accused should not be exercised.
Court observed that in the present case the applicant/accused is facing the charges for commission of Offence punishable under section 420/468/471/120B IPC and section 66D of IT Act and section 89/91 of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. Fabricating facts, the applicant/accused has defrauded the complainant.
“The complainant/UPSC in order to achieve the misrepresentation has prepared various documents for her defense. The conspiracy has been hatched in a pre classified way. The conspiracy was achieved par applicant, the person/accused for many years,” said the court.
“The applicant/accused could not be the only person to have completed the conspiracy in isolation from some insider or outsider.” “It is also submitted by the Advocate for Delhi Police that the OBC (non creamy layer) AND DD person are both under consideration and investigation,” noted the Court.
Further, the court held that, “the complainant/UPSC Complaints center: Who is it. It is a word gravely powerful with regard to the allotment. This is so because this organization offers examination for highly regarded designations for which applicants from every nooks of the nation apply. Therefore, complainant is always required to adhere to the highest degree of compliance with the standard operating Procedure besides the requirements. It is an admitted case of the complainant also that its standard operating procedure (SOP) has been breached by the applicant/accused, there in the complainant must look back, since such concern suggests its monitoring system has ‘missed the mark’ to some degree. 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.”
That is the reason suggesting why it may be necessary for the complainant to refine and bolsterits SOP against the possibility as suggested owing to the need to maintain the image of the person(s) who have applied and general public’s trust.
“It has also directed the complainant to make a fresh investigation of its recommendations describing candidate (a) who have exceeded the permissible number of illegal attempts; (b) who have obtained the OBC non creamy layer ceiling without being entitled; (c) who had benefitted from the benchmark disability category but wasn’t entitled to.” code by quoting competence instance – cite certain sections authors standard synopsis.
Therefore the investigating agency has also been asked to expand the horizons of its investigation. Therefore, it is ordered that the investigation shall be comprehensive in nature many candidates who were recommended in the recent past (a) who availed of the illegal attempts beyond the allowable number (b) who have obtained the ordinary backward class (OBC) benefits despite there is no entitlement for them (c) who have enjoyed the special reservations for disabled persons despite having no such condition and (d) when there is such insider than the blaming woman strategists complaint agency there needs to be investigations about how the outsider compliment strategist has been able to help the legal procedures the applicant aims at illegal objectives, the court provided.
Recently granted liberty to Delhi High Court to ex- probationary IAS Puja Khedkar’s in order to have her petition challenging the cancellation of her candidature heard by the right body.
