Following the dismissal of the discharge applications of retired Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Jagbir Singh and Inspector Nasib Singh in the alleged 2011 Chandigarh Police recruitment scam, the Chandigarh court has begun trial in the case.The trial began on July 24 after the court found that the material on record discloses a prima facie case against the two police personnel.The Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Dr Harpreet Kaur has framed charges under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 467 (forgery), 471 (using forged document as genuine), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter is now listed for September 9 for prosecution evidence.According to the prosecution case noted in the order, the recruitment process for 11 posts of Water Carrier (Class IV) in the Indian Reserve Battalion, Chandigarh, was initiated in 2010. A total of 22,036 candidates applied, of whom 827 qualified the first trade test. During compilation of the final result, discrepancies in the allocation of marks were detected by the compilation committee headed by then commandant Arun Kampani, leading to cancellation of the entire recruitment process. A subsequent inquiry headed by Ram Niwas Meena allegedly found various irregularities and alterations in the original marks awarded to candidates, following which the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell and the present case was registered.While seeking discharge in the case, counsel for Inspector Nasib Singh argued that he had been falsely implicated due to a “faulty and biased investigation” and had merely assisted the then Selection Committee chairman R S Ghumman during the first trade test. It was submitted that his role was confined to awarding marks during the test and that all records prepared by him were handed over to the chairman after each day’s proceedings. It was further argued that the alleged alterations in marks did not amount to forgery, that the disputed marksheet was not a “valuable security” within the meaning of Section 467 IPC, and that the CFSL report did not attribute the disputed alterations to him but only showed his initials on the document.The defence also submitted that there was no complaint from any candidate alleging favouritism or bias in the recruitment process and claimed that Nasib Singh had been implicated due to “professional rivalry and vindictiveness”.Retired DSP Jagbir Singh, in his discharge application, submitted that he had served Chandigarh Police for about 37 years with an “unblemished record” and had been falsely implicated in the case. His counsel argued that there was no evidence linking him to any overwriting, correction or alteration in the marks awarded during the first trade test.Story continues below this adThe defence counsel relied on the statements of head constable Sanjay and constable Sumanjit Singh, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, to contend that the alleged overwriting was carried out at the instance of Inspector Nasib Singh. It was also pointed out that the CFSL report dated December 12, 2023, was unable to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned writings.Further, the defence argued that although the prosecution had recorded statements of 77 candidates during investigation, none had made any allegation against the accused or the recruitment process, and these statements were deliberately withheld from the court, which the defence regarded as a “blatant abuse of process of law”.The Chandigarh Administration, in its reply, however stated that the committee constituted for compilation of the final result in his report dated February 16, 2016 has found serious irregularities and alteration in the original marks awarded to the candidates by the members of committee constituted for first Trade test and referred the matter to the Vigilance. The matter was thoroughly investigated and on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused.Dealing with Inspector Nasib Singh’s plea, the court noted that the prosecution alleges he, in conspiracy with other members of the committee, tampered with marks by increasing or decreasing the original marks awarded to candidates during the first trade test.Story continues below this adThe court observed that there are in fact certain alterations in the marksheet and that 24 alterations have initials or signatures of Nasib Singh, which prima facie stands established from the CFSL report.The court, however, said the defence raised by Nasib Singh could only be tested during trial.“Whether such alterations have been made with an intention to extend benefit to the concerned candidates for some extraneous consideration or have been made bonafidely considering some additional facts or for correction of initial mistake, is a question which can only be answered after due appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties and cannot be decided at this stage,” the court held as it ordered that no case of discharge is made out against Nasib Singh.On the retired DSP’s application, the court observed that the only allegation against him is that he signed the marksheet as a committee member.Story continues below this adAs it dismissed Jagbir Singh’s discharge application, the court noted that “there is no sufficient evidence” at this stage that he has made alteration in the marksheet, but held that “whether he was part of the conspiracy or had the knowledge of the alleged malicious correction of marks are questions which can only be answered after trial”.Meanwhile, the trial in the case has commenced, and the matter was adjourned to September 9 for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses.