New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday (September 20) dismissed a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha (RS) member Swati Maliwal challenging an order of a trial court framing charges against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly abusing her official position during her tenure as the chief of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) in appointing persons associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to different posts in the DCW.
Allegations serious in nature and revolve around alleged nepotism to promote appointments of people known to them and associated with AAP: High Court
Justice Amit Mahajan, while refusing to quash the order framing charges against Maliwal, said that the very fact that appointments have been made and there is material in the chargesheet that persons who have been appointed without due process and proper assessment against non- existent posts and are given remuneration (pecuniary advantage), prima facie, satisfies the ingredients of section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and attracts grave suspicion against the accused persons.
“The allegations are serious in nature and revolve around alleged nepotism by the accused persons to promote appointments of people known to them and associated with AAP,” the High Court said.
Nepotism is also a type of corruption: High Court
“Nepotism is also a type of corruption. The same can be especially damaging when it is propagated in an organisation meant to secure the interests of public as it not only hollows the administrative machinery, but it also damages the trust of the public in the institution and deprives eligible candidates of a fair opportunity to secure the appointments. At this stage, in the absence of any cogent material to suggest that a fair and transparent method was adopted by the petitioners to recruit the appointees, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the claim made by the accused persons that they did not abuse their position in order to obtain pecuniary advantages for other persons or that there was no dishonest intention,” the High Court added.
There was a lack of transparency in appointments: Prosecution
As per the prosecution, there was a lack of transparency in the appointments and the same were made without creation of any posts, publication of vacancies or considering the academic or extracurricular excellence of the appointed individuals. It has been alleged that apart from the illegal appointments, salaries of those employees were enhanced arbitrarily and illegally, at the cost of public money and the government exchequer.
FIR was registered in September 2016 following a complaint by former MLA Barkha Shukla Singh
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on September 19, 2016 for the offences under sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 409/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a complaint filed by former MLA Barkha Shukla Singh, who sent a letter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Delhi alleging that the Government of Delhi had adopted several untoward and illegal practices to benefit the aids and associates of AAP and one such organisation where such appointments were made was DCW. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was filed in the case.
