MPSC scam accused wants his name out of chargesheet | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 23, 2017-Monday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

MPSC scam accused wants his name out of chargesheet

mumbai Updated: Aug 23, 2010 01:21 IST
Urvi Mahajani
Urvi Mahajani
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Former Indian Police Service officer and chairman of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) has approached the Bombay High Court seeking that his name be removed from the infamous MPSC scam, in which he has been named a suspect since June 2004.

Gyanchan Verma, an IPS officer from the 1965 batch, has filed a petition asking for his name to be removed from the four supplementary chargesheets alleging that then investigating officer Sudhakar Pujari had victimised him.

The MPSC scam came to light in 2001, when the commission conducted exams for the year 1999 for the appointment of Mantralaya assistants.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a case in 2002 following allegations that original answer sheets were replaced with fake ones, computer data was tampered with and marks given for interviews were arbitrarily hiked.

Twenty-nine people were arrested. This included former MPSC chairman S.D. Karnik, former examination controller Sudhakar Sarode, MPSC member Sayli Joshi and Deputy Superintendent of Police Baban Kadam.

Verma’s name has been on the list of suspects from the sixth supplementary chargesheet filed in June 2004 to the ninth supplementary chargesheet filed in March 2006. Verma’s lawyer, Dinesh Tiwari, alleged that Verma was victimised because as he refused to give in to Pujari’s demand of persuading Sayli Joshi to surrender.

Tiwari said former director generals of police and a special inspector general have also filed affidavits in reply to petitions filed by the other accused in the scam, and have alleged that Pujari’s approach was biased.

Verma has also claimed that he had guided the inquiry officer on how to conduct the inquiry and that he was the one who suggested that the matter be referred to the ACB.

The high court as asked an officer not below the rank of secretary in the concerned department or ministry to file a reply. The matter will be heard on August 30.