Sign in

Chandigarh estate office clerk demanded ₹2.5 lakh bribe on officers’ behest: CBI report

According to CBI report, Narayan Swami, a resident of Bapu Dham Colony in Sector 26, Chandigarh, filed a complaint against Satpal for demanding a bribe to facilitate a legal document of his residence

Updated on: Oct 16, 2024, 08:34:02 IST
By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

A day after two employees of Colony Branch, Estate Office, Chandigarh, were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) while accepting a bribe, a detailed FIR report by the CBI has revealed that main accused Satpal demanded a bribe of 2.5 lakh on behalf of officers of the estate office.

According to CBI report, Narayan Swami, a resident of Bapu Dham Colony in Sector 26, Chandigarh, lodged a complaint on October 11, accusing Satpal of threatening his family with eviction from their house. (HT File)
According to CBI report, Narayan Swami, a resident of Bapu Dham Colony in Sector 26, Chandigarh, lodged a complaint on October 11, accusing Satpal of threatening his family with eviction from their house. (HT File)

Besides Satpal, who worked as clerk, the other accused was identified as Sanjiv, in-charge of the Colony Branch. According to the report, Narayan Swami, a resident of Bapu Dham Colony in Sector 26, in his complaint lodged on October 11, alleged that an official named Satpal, posing as a “dealing hand” of the building branch, DC office, visited his residence and falsely claimed that Swami and his family were illegally occupying the property.

Swami accused Satpal of threatening his family with eviction from their house and threatened him that the rent receipt would be issued in the name of one Kashilingam, a person involved in a past ownership dispute.

Despite a 2013 court ruling in favour of Swami’s maternal grandmother, Satpal demanded 2.5 lakh to settle the matter, reduced from an initial demand of 3.5 lakh. Satpal also informed Swami that the matter was being handled by Sanjiv, who had expressed displeasure over reducing the bribe amount as the official was responsible for issuing the rent receipt.

Upon receiving Swami’s complaint, the CBI initiated a verification process. On October 11, Satpal met Swami and reiterated the bribe demand, stating that the money was collected on behalf of officers at the office. He named Sanjiv as well during his interaction with Swami.

A case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018) was registered. The investigation will also examine Sanjiv’s involvement. Both accused were sent to judicial custody.