Department of School Education TLg 644)1__ Haryana
Department of School Education TLg 644)1__ Haryana
Department of School Education TLg 644)1__ Haryana
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
HARYANA GOVERNMENTSCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTORDERNo. cri -- .7 /I 4-leA.cro Dated: /- -41Whereas Supreme Court <strong>of</strong> India vide its order dated 25.11.2003 directedthe CBI to investigate the matter <strong>of</strong> two sets <strong>of</strong> interview award lists prepared.for selection <strong>of</strong> JBT Teachers as a consequence <strong>of</strong> advertisement made in`Indian Express' and Dainik Tribune' on 15.11.1999 by Directorate <strong>of</strong> Primary<strong>Education</strong>, <strong>Haryana</strong> for recruiting 3206 JBT Teachers. Court <strong>of</strong> Special Judge -II (Prevention <strong>of</strong> Corruption Act) (CBI), Rohini, Delhi in the said case titled asCBI V/ s Vidya Dhar etc., CC No. 37/2010 vide its judgment dated 16.01.2013/22.01.2013 convicted Shri Ram Kumar, S/o Shri Bhana Ram, Block <strong>Education</strong>Officer, Kalayat (Kaithal) alongwith Vir Bhan Mehta and Dilbagh Singh asunder: -‘ii ".11-b)-1'‘611-1)1Offence Under Section13(2) <strong>of</strong> Prevention <strong>of</strong>Corruption Act, 1988Sentence and fineRigorous imprisonment for a period <strong>of</strong> twoyear alongwith fine <strong>of</strong> Rs.100/-.120-B IPC read withSection 418/467/471read with 13(2) <strong>of</strong>Prevention <strong>of</strong> CorruptionAct, 1988418 IPC467 IPC(c) 471 IPCRigorous imprisonment for a period <strong>of</strong> fouryears alongwith fine <strong>of</strong> Rs.100/-.Rigorous imprisonment for a period <strong>of</strong> threeyears.Rigorous imprisonment for a period <strong>of</strong> fouryears alongwith fine <strong>of</strong> Rs.100/-.Rigorous imprisonment for a period <strong>of</strong> threeyears alongwith fine <strong>of</strong> Rs.100/-.It is specific to mention here that in the said case, 55 persons have beenconvicted and out <strong>of</strong> these, 50 persons belong to <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong> <strong>Department</strong>and further presently, Shri Ram Kumar is in service and all others have retiredfrom government service at the time <strong>of</strong> their conviction.In view <strong>of</strong> above, firstly it is to be categorized whether the abovementioned <strong>of</strong>fences fall in the category <strong>of</strong> moral turpitude, so as to attractsecond proviso (a) to article 311(2) <strong>of</strong> the Constitution <strong>of</strong> India for takingfurther decision <strong>of</strong> dismissal or removal or reduction in rank on the ground <strong>of</strong>conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge. In this regards, nospecific classification has been made neither in the Punjab Civil Services Rule,Volume I, Part - I, nor in the <strong>Haryana</strong> Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1987. However, instructions issued by Chief Secretary to Government