SHILLONG: The High court of Meghalaya has rejected a stay on the CBI probe into the police recruitment anomalies in Meghalaya Public Service Commission and asked the CBI official probing the matter to carry on and complete the task at the earliest.
During the hearing on Thursday, the Division Bench said that in-charge Superintendent of Police, CBI may continue with the preliminary inquiry that has been taken up and for that matter, “he may also take the hard disk of the computer as required, but without otherwise disturbing the data stored”.
Earlier, one Millon Ch Momin had filed a writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the result of interviews conducted by the Commission between December 15 and 17, 2014, for the post of junior MPS Officer in the Home (Police) Department.
The petitioner had questioned the fairness of the process adopted by the Commission and alleged that he was not on the Select List despite securing higher marks than four Garo candidates, who have been arrayed as respondents No. 8 to 11 in the petition.
Later, on June 16 this year, the single bench of the High Court had ordered a CBI probe into the matter. However, the Commission through an appeal had questioned the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court.
“After such collection of the requisite information by the In-Charge Superintendent of Police, CBI, the referred computer can be used by the Commission for other purposes but it would be the responsibility of the Commission to ensure safety and preservation of the data related with the issue involved in this matter,” the order said.
The Court said the CBI officer would complete the preliminary inquiry at the earliest and submit his report along with the entire supporting materials in a sealed cover
The matter will come up for hearing on September 28.
During the hearing, senior counsel S. Chakrawarty for MPSC said that the single Judge had directly proceeded to order a preliminary inquiry by the CBI and added that the course adopted by the Single Judge is neither envisaged by law nor warranted on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
He further submitted that the CBI, in the process of such an inquiry, had gone to the extent of putting a seal on the main computer of the Office of the Controller of Examination, which is leading to serious administrative difficulties and is hampering the regular functioning of the Commission.
However, Senior Counsel VK Jindal, who appeared for the CBI before the Court, had submitted that after taking up the inquiry, the CBI had indeed collected certain documents and recorded some statements, but for a proper inquiry, examination of the contents of the hard disk of the computer used in the process is necessary; and the officers concerned visited the office of the Commission with computer engineers to obtain necessary data and to transfer the data from the hard disk to an external drive, but were not permitted to do so by the officers in the Commission and hence the inquiry could not be finalised.
Senior Counsel S.P Mahanta appearing for the petitioner, however, justified the CBI probe.
Senior government Advocate N.D Chullai appearing for the respondents (number 6 to 8) had submitted that unnecessary and baseless allegations have been levelled against the State authorities in the writ petition; and that the CBI inquiry was not warranted.
AG Momin, counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5, had also echoed the same.
