Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Noting that three appointments were made in an opaque manner without advertisements of vacancies in the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) which “clearly reflected nepotism”, a Delhi Court on Thursday framed charges against DCW Chairperson, Swati Maliwal and three others for allegedly "abusing their official positions".

The allegations against all four accused persons are that they illegally appointed various acquaintances, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers, in DCW between August 2015 and 2016.

Maliwal and the three others namely, Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary, and Farheen Malick have been charged under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi observed, “A strong suspicion does arise against all the four accused persons and the facts do disclose prima facie sufficient material to frame charges against all the four accused persons for offences u/S 120B of IPC r/w Sec. 13(1)(d)/13(2) of POC Act as well as for the substantive offence u/S 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(2) of POC Act. Charges be framed accordingly.”

The Special Judge stated that merely because DCW was pursuing the Government to fill vacant positions which were not timely complied with by the Government did not give any right to DCW to make arbitrary appointments.

“The above-mentioned facts do create a strong suspicion that recruitments to various posts were made during the impugned tenure of the accused persons for different remunerations in an arbitrary manner, violating all Rules & Regulations in which the near & dear ones were appointed and remunerations were given to them from public exchequer”, the court added.

The counsel for the accused persons argued that there is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and thus, charges under S.120B of IPC cannot be framed against them.

To this, the court stated that in the present case, the circumstances do prima facie strongly indicate such a conspiracy between the accused persons. “Even though, there are no express allegations in as many words against the accused persons as to their conspiracy mentioned in the charge sheet, indeed Sec. 120B of IPC has been invoked against them and the facts do indicate such a conspiracy”, the court said.

On perusal of the minutes of meetings held on various dates from February 26, 2016, to August 9, 2016, by the DCW, wherein decisions of creation of posts/ appointments/ fixing and enhancing of remuneration were made, the court said, “Several persons were appointed and the remuneration was arbitrarily increased, as also the minutes dated 01.03.2016 regarding the appointment of Mr. Dhal, to which all the four accused are signatories are enough to prima facie point to a strong suspicion that the appointments in question were made by the accused persons in agreement with each other”.

The case was registered on a complaint by Former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Barkha Shukla Singh on August 11, 2016, before the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). She alleged that several individuals, who are/were associated with AAP were appointed in DCW in violation of all Rules & Regulations, without publication of vacancies and as such granting pecuniary benefits to them. Thereafter based on the complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and an FIR was registered against the accused persons.

Case Title: State v. Swati Maliwal & Ors.