[Cash-For-Job Scam] Madras High Court Refuses To Discharge Minister Senthil Balaji, Orders Fresh Enquiry

    • [Cash-For-Job Scam] Madras High Court Refuses To Discharge Minister Senthil Balaji, Orders Fresh Enquiry

    Madras High Court has ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, a case involving irregularities in the appointment in State Transport Corporation.Justice V Sivagnanam observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as the agency had failed to include certain crucial aspects.Going through all the papers before me, I am of the...

    Madras High Court has ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, a case involving irregularities in the appointment in State Transport Corporation.

    Justice V Sivagnanam observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as the agency had failed to include certain crucial aspects.
    Going through all the papers before me, I am of the opinion that these cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020, C.C.No.24 of 2021 are fit one to direct reinvestigation/de-novo investigation for collecting fresh evidence and material to find out the truth.
    The court also dismissed the discharge petitions filed by the Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, stating that the case impacts the society. The court also noted that there were materials against the Minister and there was no infirmity in framing of charge by the court below.
    The court noted that even though in two of the cases, the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act was not charge sheeted, the nature of the offence was such that the matter could not be quashed even though a settlement had been arrived at by the parties.
    No doubt, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act committed by the public servants was not included but the nature of the offence alleged in the complaint is cash-for-job scam, therefore, it is not a fit case for quash even though the victims, the complainants and the offenders have settled the dispute. The nature of the offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on Society, therefore, I find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners besides I find no good reason for quashing the criminal case.
    Thus, the court directed the authorities to conduct investigation ab intio without reference to the earlier investigation and covering all aspects including whether the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act was made out or not.
    Further, if the investigation agency found substantial materials, the investigation agency of the predicate offence was to provide the documents to the Enforcement Directorate to invoke jurisdiction and conduct inquiry under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
    Background
    In the years 2014-2015, recruitment for the post of Reserve Crew Drivers, Crew Conductors, Juniors Trades Men (JTM), Junior Assistant (JA), Junior Engineer (JE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) was conducted in all the Transport Corporations in the State of Tamil Nadu.
    In these appointments, various officials of Transport Department colluded jointly and severally Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji who was the Transport Minister during that time. Malpractices and irregularities were committed in the process of recruitment during the official position. They had sought money in exchange of providing employment to the candidates thus committing cheating against gullible job seekers.
    The court noted that the investigation had suffered significantly since there was a failure to obtain Forensic Document Analysis Report regarding the registers used for entering interview marks. Multiple petitions by different parties added to this misery.
    The court also noted that the investigation was incomplete and some details were missing in the Final Report. Out of the three FIRs, the investigation agency had charge sheeted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in only one FIR. The court thus noted that the investigation agency had acted with extraordinary dilatoriness.
    A perusal of the final reports, it is seen that the investigating agency has acted with extraordinary dilatoriness, in the matter by not including the offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, in C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.25 of 2021, a complaint against the accused is essentially receiving money for providing job. The investigating agency concerned did not act diligently in this matter.
    Thus, the court ordered accordingly.
    Case Title: Senthil Balaji v State
    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
    Case No: Crl RC 221 of 2021 (batch)
    Click here to read/download the judgment

    Tags
    Madras High CourtJustice V SivagnanamMinister V SenthilbalajiScamPrevention of Corruption Act 1988Prevention of Money Laundering Act
    Upasana Sajeev

    Upasana Sajeev is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering Madras High Court

    LiveLaw Biz

    LiveLaw WhatsApp Channel
    Next Story