2024 (5) TMI 1491 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - Conspiracy concerning illegal appointments of teachers in primary schools - illegal recruitment process for appointment of primary teachers in the year 2016 - illegal gratification for wrongful appointments - HELD THAT - Office bearers of the Board had entered into a conspiracy and devised an ingenious strategem to ensure appointment of favoured candidates who were ready and willing to shell out illegal gratification. Deserving candidates were ignored. Petitioner played a vital role to set up a web of agents and sub agents who approached these underserving candidates and procured illegal gratification. To enable this criminal enterprise he floated a fake website of West Bengal Board of Primary Education titled www.wbtetresults.com. Therefore, petitioner and his agents and sub agents induced candidates to pay them illegal gratification for wrongful appointments. It is surprising to note the investigating agency did not add offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the police report. Timely intervention by the trial Judge led to the addition of the offence under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A deeper scrutiny of the profile of the allegations would show they disclose graver offences under section 7 read with 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in addition to section 7A of the said Act - In the present case the corruption has polluted the recruitments to primary schools. It is the fundamental duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 years. When this constitutional duty is polluted and devastated through the greed of public servants and their associates like the petitioner, gravity and magnitude of the crime must be seen through the prism of constitutional dereliction and not merely with reference to the quantum of punishment. The petitioner is in custody for more than a year. It is strongly argued further investigation is in progress and there is little possibility of trial commencing in the near future. It is imperative under-trial detention ought not to be protracted unnecessarily lest it takes the character of a punitive one - In the present case, further detention is necessary to insulate the process of further investigation with regard to the nexus of the petitioner with the office bearers of the Board. It is also necessary to trace out the proceeds of crime which were rooted through the petitioner to other influential persons. Though it is argued petitioner has been striped off his official role in the political party, he continues to have overwhelming influence and his release on bail shall overawe various candidates and other individuals who are vital witnesses to prove the involvement of the petitioner in procuring illegal appointments. It is also relevant to note petitioner has been implicated in offences under PMLA and complaint has been filed against him. This is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage - Prayer for bail rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Conspiracy concerning illegal appointments of teachers in primary schools
- Role of the petitioner in the conspiracy
- Investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Bail application of the petitioner

Conspiracy concerning illegal appointments of teachers in primary schools:
The judgment outlines a deep-rooted conspiracy involving illegal appointments of teachers in primary schools in the state. The conspiracy was unearthed during the hearing of a writ petition, revealing that public servants in responsible positions of the State administration, including the Primary Education Board, were involved. The recruitment process for primary teachers in 2016 resulted in over 300 illegal appointments due to a unique modus operandi where candidates were favored with an additional mark in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to qualify for the recruitment process. The decision was not implemented uniformly, and some unqualified candidates were favored in exchange for illegal gratification.

Role of the petitioner in the conspiracy:
The petitioner, a prominent youth leader of the ruling political party, played a significant role in the conspiracy. He built a network throughout the state to collect illegal gratification from undeserving candidates for illegal appointments. The petitioner, along with his associates, collected over Rs. 8 crores from numerous candidates. Despite being arrested during the investigation, the petitioner did not cooperate and even made allegations against the investigating agency. The petitioner's involvement in procuring undue favors from public servants against illegal gratification was evident from the materials collected during the investigation.

Investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The investigating agency did not initially include offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the charge sheet, leading the learned Magistrate to take cognizance under section 7A of the Act. Further investigation aimed to unravel the nexus between the petitioner and the office bearers of the Board for procuring illegal appointments and tracing the money trail. The judgment highlighted the gravity of the offense and the need to consider the impact of corruption on public administration and the rule of law. The court emphasized that the corruption in the recruitment process of teachers had polluted the fundamental duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education, necessitating a deeper scrutiny of the allegations.

Bail application of the petitioner:
The petitioner sought bail, citing prolonged custody, ongoing investigation, and the unlikelihood of an immediate trial. However, the Deputy Solicitor General opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner's influential role, involvement in creating a fake website, and booking under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court, after analyzing the charge sheet and considering the need to insulate the ongoing investigation, denied bail to the petitioner, stating that further detention was necessary to prevent interference with witnesses and the investigation process.

In conclusion, the court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for further investigation to be conducted promptly and independently.