AAP’s Satyendar Jain gets clean chit in PWD corruption case: What were the allegations against him?
Dig Vinay Singh, a special judge, said that the investigation did not produce evidence of any criminal abuse.
The judge, “the investigation agency, especially in accordance with the POC (Prevention of Corruption) law to prove the commission of any crime for such a long time to find any accusing evidence, more trial will not serve a useful purpose,” he said.
In addition, “Corruption Law or Penalty Conspiracy Prevention Department 13 (1) (D) did not have a crime and the alleged actions were“ the most ına to the administrative tours. The Court stressed that there was no sign of the criminal conspiracy, the abuse of power, the wrong damage to the financial gain or the government precedent ”.
After a four -year investigation, the CBI submitted its final report and concluded that “criminal activity or the government was not wrong harm”. The Agency also said that rejecting a protest petition against its findings and Prima Facie evidence was not supported.
Responding to development, AAP accused BJP of abuse of central agencies. Arvind Kejriwal, the chief of the party and former Delhi Prime Minister Arvind Kejriwal, asked for all the cases against AAP leaders on X (formerly twitter) that they were “wrong ve and who would be responsible for the emotional wages in their families.
What was the situation?
On May 29, 2019, the CBI recorded a furnace based on the complaint of Uyanık Directorate. Jain accused Jain of later serving as Delhi’s PWD Minister, skipping built -in procedures to hire a 17 -member advisor team. The complaint claimed that the appointments were made without appropriate approval from the financial department and the payments were directed from irrelevant project funds.
The CBI investigation focused on whether the recruitment process is transparent, whether the funds were used incorrectly and whether the rules were ignored to benefit certain individuals.
However, according to the agency’s closure report, recruitment started with a public advertisement that has approximately 1,700 applications. CBI said that the appointments were justified, given that professionals were hired in mery and about 50% of the architectural tasks were empty. The department also discussed large infrastructure projects that required emergency manpower.
The court said that it is a widespread practice to hire a hire through an outsourcing agency ”, referring to the agency’s findings. He also stressed that there is no payment beyond the foreseen norms and approved boundaries ”and there was no evidence of“ Quid Pro Quo or conspiracy ”.
