Constable exam paper leak case: ED raids four states
Patna: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday launched simultaneous raids in Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal in connection with the police constable recruitment examination paper leak case.
The large-scale operation is part of an ongoing investigation into money laundering linked to the scam.
According to official sources, the search operation was conducted 11 locations in Bihar and Jharkhand. In Patna, ED officials raided the premises of Shiv, while in Ranchi, the residence of Sikandar Prasad Yadavendu was searched. Both are directly involved in the recruitment scam. Shiv is the son of Sanjeev Mukhiya, alleged mastermind of the NEET-UG 2024 paper leak, according to sources.
The ED team began its operations at two separate locations in Nalanda from 7.30am. One raid was conducted at the residence of Shiv in Balwa village while the other targeted the home of Sandeep Kumar in Gosai Math village. Sandeep is said to be a close associate of Mukhiya.
The teams, arriving in three ED vehicles accompanied by central security forces, involved about a dozen officials in total. Sources said original certificates of eight to ten candidates were found, along with four blank cheques.
Chequebooks, passbooks, certificates, and other documents were also seized.
A separate raid was carried out at Sikandar's residence near RPS Mor under Rupaspur police station limits. However, no official statement from the ED has been released so far.
Tension briefly escalated in Gosai Math when around 25 villagers protested the ED action, threatening to disrupt proceedings and raising fears of stone-pelting.
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel promptly brought the situation under control, and the raid continued without further hindrance until the afternoon.
Sandeep, who owns the largest share of agricultural land in his village, fled before the ED team arrived, adding to suspicions of his involvement.
Meanwhile, Shiv, who had been jailed earlier in the same constable recruitment paper leak case, was recently released on bail.
He was also the subject of Thursday's raid in Patna.
His father, Sanjeev Mukhiya, is widely considered the key figure behind the NEET-UG paper leak and has allegedly been involved in leaking several other competitive exam papers. In April 2025, he was arrested by the Special Task Force (STF) in Patna after absconding since the NEET-UG leak on May 5, 2024. A reward of Rs 3 lakh had been declared for information leading to his arrest.
He is currently lodged in jail.
Mukhiya, formerly employed as a technical assistant at the Horticulture College in Noorsarai, Nalanda, has once again brought to light the rampant corruption in the education sector.
His wife, Mamta Devi, had contested the 2020 assembly elections from Harnaut on an LJP ticket. She is expected to contest the upcoming elections as well, although it is unclear whether she will stand as an independent or represent a political party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC rejects plea by IAS officer, kin seeking quashing of CBI probe into graft charge
1 2 Cuttack : The Orissa high court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by senior IAS officer Bishnupada Sethi, his wife and daughter seeking to quash a CBI investigation into alleged corruption. The court ruled that the petition was "premature and not maintainable", as the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The case stems from the arrest of a PSU executive on Dec 8 last year for allegedly accepting a Rs 10 lakh bribe from a Bhubaneswar-based real estate firm. During interrogation, Sethi's name emerged, prompting a CBI search at his residence on Feb 18 this year. The petitioners alleged procedural violations and harassment, and sought the return of seized materials. Justice S K Panigrahi, however, rejected these claims, emphasising that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution cannot be misused to derail legitimate investigations. "Higher the office, greater the responsibility," he observed, noting that Sethi, as a senior bureaucrat, is expected to uphold legal integrity, not evade scrutiny. The court stressed that no chargesheet had been filed yet, and interference at this point would undermine both investigative processes and public interest. It criticised the petitioners' approach as "forum-shopping" and warned against setting a precedent that powerful individuals can shield themselves from legal accountability. The court clarified that its refusal to intervene does not equate to a presumption of guilt, and the petitioners retain full rights to defend themselves during trial. However, it maintained that mere status or reputation cannot justify halting a probe into serious allegations of public corruption. On Feb 25, Justice Panigrahi had ordered, "As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date." The interim restriction was extended from time to time and was in force till the petition was dismissed on Friday.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
K'taka moots 10yr jail for fake news, misinformation
Bengaluru: The Karnataka govt has resolved to crack down on fake news and misinformation by constituting a six-member social-media regulatory authority to ban promotion and spread of fake news on social media, prohibit posting of content insulting to women, ban publication of content that disrespects Sanatana Dharma, its symbols, beliefs and content which promotes superstition. U nder Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill 2025, accessed by TOI, the govt has proposed up to seven years in prison or Rs 10 lakh fine or both if social-media users are found guilty of sharing unverified information. It has also suggested a two- to five-year jail term and fine for misinformation on social media or in publications. These offences will be considered cognizable but non-bailable. The social-media regulatory authority will ensure content posted on social media should be based on authentic research on subjects related to science, history, religion, philosophy and literature. To fasten accountability, the bill states special courts will be set up with Karnataka high court's concurrence, with a sessions judge presiding over one or more districts. The special courts will issue directions to intermediaries, publishers, broadcasters, or any other persons exercising control over communication medium disseminating misinformation to persons in Karnataka. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo The proposal It gives the aggrieved parties 30 days to respond to notices. If directions are ignored, then the court can issue punishment of simple imprisonment of up to 2 years and a fine of Rs 25,000 a day, subject to a maximum of Rs 25 lakh. The bill suggests action against directors of companies and employees, who were present during the violation of the laws if their company is found guilty. It suggests special public prosecutors for every special court for fake news and misinformation, besides proposing punitive action under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against persons posting fake news. Ends GFX What is fake news? Misquotation, false, inaccurate report of one's statement, editing audio or video resulting in distortion of facts, context, or purely fabricated content. What is misinformation? Knowingly, recklessly making false or inaccurate statement of fact -- wholly or in part -- in the context in which it appears, excluding opinions, religious or philosophical sermons, satire, comedy or parody, or any other form of artistic expression if a reasonable man of ordinary prudence does not pursue such communications as statements of facts. Punishment: For fake news: 7 years imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine For misinformation: 2 to 5 years; for those who abet, punishment up to 2 years For those who fail to abide by court directive: Up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000 per day up to Rs 25 lakh .................................................................................................. 3-yr jail, 5k fine for hate speech, crime Bengaluru: A bill on prohibition of hate speech and hate crimes is on the table, mooting punitive action of up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 5,000 against those found guilty. Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crime (Prevention and Control) Bill of 2025 has listed 11kinds of offences of hate speech and hate crime: Religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability, or tribe. It exempts those who are "bona fide artistic, creativity, performance or other forms of expression or academic or scientific inquiry, fair and accurate reporting or commentary in the public interest or in the publication of information, commentary, advertisement or notice or espousing of any religious tenet, belief, teaching, doctrine or writings that do not advocate hatred". ++++ Explainer What is hate crime? Any person who harms or incites harm or promotes hatred out of prejudice against or intolerance towards any other person because of victim's perceived characteristics, his or her family member or victim's association with, or support for, a group of persons who share any one or more such characteristics. What is hate speech? One who intentionally publishes, propagates, advocates anything or communicates to one or more persons that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Rs 26 lakhs awarded to employee for not working a single day for four months. Here's what happened
A man in Abu Dhabi has been awarded AED 110,400 (approximately Rs 26 lakh) in unpaid wages, despite never having started work at the company that hired him. The decision came after a court ruled in the employee's favour, highlighting that the delay in his joining was entirely the employer's fault. Employee Signed Contract But Never Got to Work As per a report by Khaleej Times, the employee, whose identity has not been disclosed, signed a fixed-term employment contract with an Abu Dhabi-based company. The agreement promised a basic monthly salary of AED 7,200, with a total compensation package of AED 24,000. The contract covered the period from November 11, 2024, to April 7, 2025. However, despite this agreement, the individual was never actually permitted to begin work. Frustrated by repeated delays and the absence of any opportunity to start his job, the man eventually filed a lawsuit seeking his withheld salary for the contract period. The court accepted his claim and ordered the company to compensate him for four months and 18 days of unpaid wages, after deducting eight days he admitted to being on leave. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Live Comfortably: 60 m² Prefab Bungalow for Seniors in Tanza Pre Fabricated Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo Court Places Responsibility on Employer The Abu Dhabi Labour Court held the employer accountable for the delay in onboarding. Citing Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021, the court underlined that employers are legally required to pay wages on time, following standards set by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation. It also referred to Article 912 of the Civil Transactions Law, which states that a worker's right to wages cannot be denied unless the employee has formally waived that right or acknowledged non-entitlement. The court examined various documents including the wage report, employment contract, and case file, and found that the fault clearly lay with the company. The evidence confirmed that the delay was not caused by the employee, as the employer had failed to provide any proof of misconduct or absenteeism. Employer's Argument Rejected by Court In response to the lawsuit, the company argued that the employee had taken leave and never reported to duty. However, the court found no records or documentation to support this claim. No formal investigation had been conducted into the employee's alleged absence. Consequently, the court dismissed the company's justification and concluded that the employee's failure to start work was directly linked to the employer's own inaction.
