New Delhi : In the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) recruitment case, the Delhi High Court has rejected the plea of Rajya Sabha MP and former DCW chairperson, Swati Maliwal, against the framing of charges against her in December 2022.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the appointment of employees during her tenure in 2015-16. The accusations were that the appointments were made in violation of rules, leading to corruption charges being brought against Maliwal.
Justice Amit Mahajan on Friday dismissed Maliwal’s petition, along with two other petitions filed by individuals who also faced charges in the same case. These appointments allegedly violated rules, and the case involves accusations of favouritism and corruption under her tenure.
This dismissal means the trial against Maliwal and the other accused will continue based on the corruption charges framed in December 2022.
In December 2022, the Trial Court, after finding prima facie sufficient material against Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal and others, ordered the framing of corruption and criminal conspiracy charges for abusing their official position in allegedly appointing Aam Admi Party (AAP) workers to different posts in the commission.
“Accordingly, a strong suspicion does arise against all four accused persons, and the facts do disclose prima facie sufficient material to frame charges against all four accused persons for offences under sections 120B of IPC r/w with 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the POC Act as well as for the substantive offence under sections 13(2) r/w with 13(1)(2) of the POC Act. Charges be framed accordingly,” said Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh.
Along with DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal, the court also ordered to put DCW then-members Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary, and Farheen Malick on trial.
According to the prosecution, all four accused persons in conspiracy with each other abused their official position and obtained pecuniary advantages for the party workers and acquaintances of Swati Maliwal as well as the ruling party, namely AAP.
It is claimed that such workers and acquaintances were appointed to different posts of DCW without following due process. Rather, the appointments were made in contravention of procedures, rules, and regulations, without even advertising for the posts, in violation of General Finance Rules (GFR) and other guidelines, and that money was disbursed to various such persons towards remuneration, salary, and honorarium.
While passing the order, the Court said that the perusal of minutes of the meetings held on various dates by the DCW, of which all four accused were signatories, were “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.”
Thus, it cannot be claimed by the accused persons that they did not abuse their position in order to obtain pecuniary advantages for other persons, i.e. the persons so appointed, or that prima facie there was no dishonest intention. A public servant causing wrongful loss to the government by benefitting a third party would squarely fall within the definition of Section 13(1)(d), said the court.
The court further said that the argument of the accused persons that DCW was completely autonomous in creating posts or recruiting anyone of its choice, falls flat from the very fact that DCW itself sought permission, and sanction of the government for the creation of post vide note and further proceedings dated October 28, 2015, which is part of the charge sheet.
Merely because DCW had been pursuing the government to fill up the vacant posts which was not timely complied with by the government, did not give any right to DCW to make arbitrary appointments, said the court.
“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 and Regulations in which the near and dear ones were appointed and remunerations were given to them from public exchequer,” said the court in order.
