||

Connecting Communities, One Page at a Time.

‘Unfit for appointment’: Delhi HC denies anticipatory bail to ex-IAS trainee officer Puja Khedkar

Charges against Khedkar, whose conduct was purely driven with a "motive to dupe" the UPSC, are a "classic example of fraud committed not only on an authority but also the nation at large," the court noted.

EPN Desk 23 December 2024 13:20

Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Dec 23 denied anticipatory bail to former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) trainee officer Puja Khedkar, who allegedly lied about physical and mental disabilities, and changed her name and surname, as well as forging an Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate, to clear the exam.

Khedkar made headlines recently for the wrong reasons.

The court said her intentions, prima facie, were to dupe authorities and observed "her steps were part of a larger conspiracy. Khedkar is "unfit for appointment", the court observed.

The charges against her, including forgery and cheating, are a "classic example of fraud committed not only by an authority but also by the nation at large", the court said.

"Conduct of the petitioner was purely driven with a motive to dupe the complainant UPSC, or the Union Public Service Commission, and all documents allegedly forged by her were done to reap benefits of schemes meant for the (disadvantaged) groups of the society," the court said.

"The investigation in the present case, as per material available on the record, prima facie reveals the petitioner is not a fit candidate to avail benefits meant for disadvantaged groups..." it added.

Notably, the court also indicated "a high possibility that family members Khedkar may have colluded with unknown powerful persons to get the certificates...", possibly expanding the investigation to include government officials and departments.

The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, who had earlier granted Khedkar temporary protection from arrest. That will likely now stand canceled.

On Aug 1, a city court had rejected her plea.

In her arguments, Khedkar doubled down on physical disability claims. She has a Maharashtra hospital certificate diagnosing her with an "old ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) tear with left knee instability" - and asked, therefore, that only attempts in the 'divyang' category be counted.

She also claimed only her middle name had been altered and argued "Therefore, there is no truth in the allegation that there has been a major change in my name". "UPSC verified my identity through biometric data... did not find my documents (to be) fake or incorrect..." she claimed.

Khedkar's bail plea had been opposed both by the Delhi Police and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which rejected the argument she is given bail on a promise to cooperate fully and because the material against her is documentary in nature, and therefore her custody isn't needed.

The police argued that Khedkar's custody was needed to interrogate her and unearth the involvement of others in the commission of the offense. The cops also said relief to Khedkar could hinder its inquiry into the "deep-rooted conspiracy" behind the alleged crime.

The UPSC, meanwhile, argued Khedkar had committed a fraud against the public, and that her custody is needed for the cops to unearth a fraud that would have needed help from other individuals.

In early September the union government sacked Khedkar, who has denied all charges against her and claimed she is being targeted since she filed a sexual harassment against her senior.

Khedkar's troubles began in June when Pune Collector Suhas Diwase wrote to Maharashtra Chief Secretary Sujata Saunik, flagging the trainee IAS officer's demands for perks such as a car, staff and an office that she was not entitled to during her two-year probation.

Thereafter, Khedkar was transferred to Washim. Amid the row, her selection for IAS came under the spotlight.

It was found that she had availed relaxed criteria for OBC candidates and persons with disabilities.

It then came to light that her father, a former Maharashtra government officer, had property to the tune of ₹ 40 crore and she did not qualify for the OBC non-creamy layer tag.

To make the matters worse for her, it also emerged that she had not appeared for a mandatory health check-up at a government facility to confirm her disability exemption.

VTT

Also Read

    Latest News

    advertisement

    Also Read


    Latest News

    advertisement

    Loading ...