Latest news with #AllIndiaServiceRules
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court Orders Transfer Of Kidnapping Case Against Tamil Nadu Senior Cop
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing suspended ADGP HM Jayaram directed the Tamil Nadu government to transfer the investigation of the teenager's abduction case to CB-CID. The Supreme Court while setting aside the arrest order of the Madras High Court also directed the Chief Justice of the high court to transfer the case to some other bench. However, the suspension of the officer will continue as the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that his suspension did not come from the high court order, but from rules. Senior lawyer Siddharth Dave appearing for Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that he was not suspended because of the orders of the high court, but under Rule 3 of the All India Service Rules, 1969. This rule empowers a disciplinary authority to suspend a member of service in respect of whom or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial is pending. The senior lawyer said that presently the investigation is underway and depending on the report of the investigating officer, a decision will be taken on the suspension order. The Supreme Court, taking this submission on record, said the suspended ADGP would have options to appeal against the suspension. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the suspended Assistant Director General of Police HM Jayaram, challenging his arrest in a kidnapping case. The Madras High Court ordered the arrest of Mr Jayaram and criticised Kilvaithinankuppam (SC) MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy for "misusing his political power" in connection with the kidnapping of a teenager. The officer approached the Supreme Court saying his arrest order was passed when he was not even a party to the proceedings in the high court. In the last hearing, the Supreme Court expressed shock over the high court order and sought the Tamil Nadu government's reply in withdrawal of suspension. The matter pertains to a May 10 kidnapping of an 18-year-old man in Thiruvallur district. He was reportedly kidnapped by a group seeking information about his elder brother, who had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes. The Madras High Court castigated the MLA and the senior police officer for using political muscle to block a lawful investigation. The case has been filed by the mother of the kidnapped man against the group of men who allegedly entered their house in Kalambakkam, searching for her elder son. They allegedly kidnapped the younger son when his elder brother was nowhere to be found. The kidnappers allegedly posed as police officers and later dropped the man near a hotel in a vehicle belonging to Mr Jayaram, the woman said in her complaint.
Hans India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
SC sets aside Madras HC directive to arrest Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram, transfers probe to CB-CID
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside an order of the Madras High Court that had directed Tamil Nadu Police to 'secure and take action' against now-suspended Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) H.M. Jayaram in connection with the abduction of an 18-year-old teenager. Given the 'controversial circumstances' and no objection offered by the Tamil Nadu government, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan directed that the matter be handed over to CB-CID (Crime Branch- Criminal Investigation Department) for further investigation. The Justice Bhuyan-led Bench was dealing with a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the senior IPS official seeking a stay on the impugned Madras High Court directive. During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the apex court raised eyebrows over the suspension order issued by the Tamil Nadu Home Department and asked the state government's counsel to seek instructions on the withdrawal of the ADGP Jayaram's suspension. 'He is a senior police official. Where is the question of suspending him when he has joined the investigation? You cannot do this. This is very demoralising,' the Justice Bhuyan-led bench had remarked. After obtaining instructions from the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, on Thursday, submitted that ADGP Jayaram was suspended following his involvement in the alleged crime and not pursuant to the impugned order of the Madras High Court. Dave stated that the All India Service Rules provided for the suspension of an official until the completion of the probe. In view of the state government's stand, the top court, in its order, recorded that the petitioner (ADGP Jayaram) would have the option to avail his remedies against the suspension order. Further, the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench asked the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to assign the alleged abduction case to a different Bench. On Monday, Tamil Nadu Police took ADGP Jayaram into custody as he exited the Madras High Court premises, and was immediately taken to Thiruvalangadu police station for interrogation. The senior IPS official is accused of facilitating the abduction of a minor boy by allegedly providing his official vehicle to a gang involved in forcibly separating a couple. The abduction case centres around a complaint lodged by a woman named Lakshmi, whose elder son had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes. The couple reportedly went into hiding, fearing retaliation. In an attempt to locate the couple, members of the woman's family, allegedly aided by hired men, barged into Lakshmi's home and abducted her younger son in their absence. The boy was later found abandoned near a hotel, injured and traumatised. Subsequent investigation revealed that an official car linked to ADGP Jayaram was allegedly used in the abduction, prompting the Madras High Court to take direct, immediate action against the senior IPS official. On Tuesday, the matter reached the Supreme Court, and a bench of Justices Bhuyan and Manmohan agreed to hear the SLP on June 18. His lawyer said: "Yesterday, an ADGP rank officer was arrested on the direction of the Madras High Court. The SLP has been filed today at 10 a.m. Kindly list the matter for urgent hearing." As per the SLP filed before the apex court, there was absolutely no material on record warranting his custodial interrogation, and the 'arbitrary and prejudicial directions' were issued without due process, infringing his fundamental right to equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty. Pertinently, the state's government on Wednesday submitted before the top court that ADGP Jayaram was not arrested since he joined the investigation.
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
J'khand first state without police chief for 2 days now: Marandi
Ranchi: State BJP president and leader of the opposition in the assembly, Babulal Marandi , on Friday launched a scathing attack on the JMM-led govt over the absence of a "constitutional" director general of police (DGP) in Jharkhand for the last two days. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Marandi made his comment as DGP Anurag Gupta superannuated on April 30. However, as no new name has been announced for the post, Gupta continues to serve in the position. Addressing the media at the BJP office here on Friday, the state BJP chief said perhaps Jharkhand is the only and first state in the country's history, which is running for two days without a police chief. "Not only the DGP's post, but the positions of DGP for the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) and criminal investigation department (CID) are also lying vacant," Marandi said. Notably, Gupta was appointed DGP by the state govt through a new rule on Feb 2 this year for two years. However, the Union home ministry, in a letter to the Jharkhand chief secretary on April 22, said the DGP's appointment made under the new rule was not consistence with the prevalent appointment guidelines and also contrary to the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case. The letter further said, "… an IPS officer shall superannuate at the age of 60. Extension of service beyond superannuation is granted only by the central govt or a two-year tenure, irrespective of the superannuation, is given to the DGP of the state appointed through the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case. However, in the present case, the central govt has not granted extension of service to Anurag Gupta, IPS, who is due to superannuate on April 30, 2025." Referring to the letter, Marandi said the directives being issued by Gupta as DGP were unconstitutional and alleged that the govt appointed Gupta as DGP for its political benefits. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "According to the All India Service Rules, the govt is supposed to send a recommendation of a panel for the DGP's appointment to the UPSC, but the Jharkhand govt made its own rules. Despite knowing that Anurag Gupta would retire on April 30, the govt blatantly ignored all rules of the country and appointed him DGP on February 2. The appointment just two months before his retirement indicates that they are using their new rule that allows a DGP to remain in the position for at least two years for their political benefits," Marandi added.
Indian Express
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
As Ashok Khemka retires, a look at the legal troubles of the IAS officer in his fight against corruption
Ashok Khemka, the 1991-batch IAS officer with a reputation for uncovering corruption who was transferred 57 times, superannuated on April 30, 2025, after a 34-year career. His actions, particularly in the Gurugram district, relating to exposing alleged irregularities in high-profile land deals, led to significant legal and disciplinary repercussions, often seen as retaliatory measures. Here are five major legal cases against the Haryana-cadre officer: 1. Cancellation of Robert Vadra-DLF land deal mutation (2012) In October 2012, as Director-General of Land Consolidation and Land Records, Khemka cancelled the mutation of a 3.5-acre land deal in Shikohpur (now Sector 83), Gurugram, between Skylight Hospitality Pvt Ltd, linked to Robert Vadra, and DLF Universal Ltd. The land was purchased by Skylight for Rs 7.5 crore in February 2008 and sold to DLF for Rs 58 crore after the Congress-led Haryana government granted it a commercial colony licence. Khemka alleged the transaction was a 'sham', facilitated by political influence. The Haryana government filed a chargesheet in 2013, accusing Khemka of overstepping his authority and exercising power after his transfer, violating service norms. The state government also alleged that the officer had selectively targeted Vadra's deal, ignoring 2,500 similar mutations in Shikohpur from 1990 to 2012. Further, he had breached the All India Service Rules by publicly critiquing government policies in media interviews. Khemka defended his actions, denied selective targeting, and contended that his public statements were necessary to expose systemic corruption. The BJP -led Haryana government dropped the major penalty chargesheet in November 2015, facilitating Khemka's promotion to principal secretary. The money laundering case is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), with Vadra questioned by the central agency earlier this month. The development triggered his transfer to the Archives Department, with no further legal action or trial since. 2. Probe into other Gurugram land deals linked to Vadra (2012) In 2012, Khemka also ordered the deputy commissioner of Gurgaon (now Gurugram) to investigate all properties registered by Vadra or his companies (Skylight Realty, Real Earth Estates, Blue Breeze Trading, Artex, and North India IT Parks) since January 1, 2005, for alleged under-valuation to evade taxes. This directive followed complaints from India Against Corruption and opposition leader Om Prakash Chautala. The then Congress-led Haryana government again accused Khemka of overreach, initiating a 'fishing inquiry' without specific evidence, and embarrassing the government through media leaks. The Justice Dhingra Commission formed by the BJP government in 2015 to investigate such land deals submitted a confidential report in 2016 that has been kept sealed and not acted upon. 3. Wazirabad land allotment allegations (2018) In 2018, one Surender Sharma filed an FIR at Kherki Daula police station, alleging that Vadra, Hooda, DLF, and others conspired to secure wrongful allotment of 350 acres in Wazirabad as part of a Rs 5,000-crore land scam. The state government initially questioned Khemka over why he didn't pursue the Wazirabad allegations during his 2012 tenure. Khemka said the allegations surfaced much later. An investigation in the case is ongoing. 4. Alleged defamation in Gurugram land deal public statements (2012-2013) Khemka's public statements and media interviews in 2012-2013, where he called the Vadra-DLF deal a 'sham' and alleged political favouritism in Gurugram's land licensing, led to a defamation complaint by a Congress leader in Haryana. The complaint was filed in a Gurugram court, accusing Khemka of tarnishing the reputation of the state government and Vadra. The officer refuted the allegations, saying conduct rules did not bar whistleblowing on illegal activities and that silencing him would protect vested interests. The case did not proceed to trial as the state dropped the chargesheet against him. 5. Gurugram land consolidation irregularities inquiry (2012) As Director General of Land Consolidation, Khemka initiated an inquiry in 2012 into broader irregularities in Gurugram's land consolidation process. He had flagged discrepancies in how agricultural land was reclassified for commercial use, benefiting developers. This led to a state government probe into his conduct. Khemka cited evidence of developers exploiting consolidation loopholes in Gurugram, inflating land values, and depriving farmers of fair compensation. He accused the government of shielding powerful real estate lobbies. The probe did not lead to a chargesheet or conviction. Khemka's transfer to the Archives Department in 2013 effectively stalled the matter.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Who is Ashok Khemka? IAS officer who cancelled Robert Vadra land deal mutation in 2012 to retire after 57 transfers in 34 years of service
NEW DELHI: Senior IAS officer Ashok Khemka , whose name became synonymous with bureaucratic integrity and political friction, is set to retire this week from his post as additional chief secretary in Haryana's Transport Department. Known as much for his honesty as for the 57 transfers he endured in 34 years of service, the 1991-batch Haryana-cadre officer bows out with a reputation few civil servants can claim—one built on defiance in the face of political pressure . You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Khemka's final posting came in December 2024. As he prepares to formally exit government service on Wednesday, his career remains defined by a single explosive episode from over a decade ago: the 2012 cancellation of a Gurugram land deal involving Robert Vadra , son-in-law of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, and realty giant DLF. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The flashpoint that shaped a career In October 2012, Khemka—then posted as Director General, Consolidation of Land Holdings—was suddenly transferred. But before relinquishing charge, he issued an order cancelling the mutation of a 3.5-acre land deal between Vadra's firm and DLF in Gurugram. The move questioned the legality of the transaction and disrupted powerful interests. The backlash was swift. Allegations flew that Khemka had overstepped his jurisdiction, failed to provide the affected parties a hearing, and even deliberately stayed in office four days after his transfer to pass the controversial order. The government accused him of violating multiple All India Service Rules and faulted him for going public with criticism of government policies—charges Khemka defended in a detailed letter to the chief secretary at the time. Within a day of his transfer, Khemka had also ordered deputy commissioners across four districts—Gurgaon, Palwal, Faridabad, and Mewat—to examine whether stamp duty had been paid properly in land deals linked to Vadra's firm. The government called the move "selective" and disproportionate, claiming thousands of land transactions had occurred between 2005 and 2012, but Khemka zeroed in on just one. The price of whistleblowing? What followed was a barrage of transfers and departmental actions that seemed designed to isolate the officer. In the months after the Vadra-DLF episode, Khemka was moved to the Haryana Seed Development Corporation (HSDC). There, too, he raised red flags—this time over irregular fungicide procurement for wheat seed treatment. That exposure prompted another transfer, to the archives department in 2013. Then came the inquiries. Between September and November 2013, the Haryana government slapped him with multiple charge sheets: one for cancelling the mutation, another for low seed sales at HSDC, and others based on complaints related to procurement of moong, weedicides, and even roofing sheets. In some cases, Khemka's name didn't even appear in the original complaint—but his presence in the system made him the focus of investigation. Even a four-year-old employee promotion issue was revived against him. Each time, Khemka responded with documents, explanations, and denials. And each time, the state found new grounds to question him.
