Patna, May 10: The Vigilance Investigation Bureau today registered a case against senior Congress leader and former Assembly Speaker Sadanand Singh for alleged irregularities in the recruitment of employees in the secretariat when he presided over the House between 2000 and 2005.
The case was registered at the vigilance police station in Patna against Singh and 41 others, including then Assembly secretary Jhauri Prasad Pal, under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Additional director-general (vigilance) P.K.Thakur confirmed the registration of the case against Singh and the others in connection with alleged irregularities in the appointment of lower grade clerks in the secretariat of the 12th Assembly between 2000 and 2005.
Sadanand Singh, one of the Congress’s four MLAs in the current Assembly, rubbished the charges and described the case as “politically motivated”. “I have been framed by the NDA government for refusing to join the BJP,” he told reporters in Patna.
He also claimed that he had a copy of the preliminary vigilance probe report that gave him a clean chit. “This is an attempt to malign my image,” he said.
The accused, among whom are 11 officials and 29 candidates, have been charged under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A), 201 and 120 (B) of the IPC and Section 13 (II) read with 13 (I) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If found guilty, the accused can even face life imprisonment.
The examination for the appointment of lower grade clerks through advertisement no. 20/2001 was conducted on August 11, 2002. Altogether 90 people were appointed in different phases. Thirty of them were said to be relatives and family members of the accused persons. A vigilance team headed by senior deputy superintendent of police Prakash Nath Mishra found evidence of irregularities in the recruitment process during a preliminary probe.
During investigation, the vigilance team found that serving employees were appointed examiners; they also conducted interviews and made certain amendments in the rules to suit their interests. Surprisingly, the answer-sheets of many candidates did not bear the signatures of the examiners.
