Lucknow: Judicial commission probing all aspects of slain gangster Vikas DubeyThe rise and fall of the special investigation team (sit).
The SIT found that at least 26 officials of the district administration and revenue department undue help to Dubey and his associates in obtaining arms licenses and fair price shop permits.
NS Supreme court A three-member inquiry commission was constituted under the chairmanship of Justice (Retd). BS ChauhanTo investigate the encounter of Dubey and his five alleged associates.
The panel also examined the circumstances that led to the rise and fall of the gang.
Earlier, the state government had constituted the SIT under the chairmanship of senior IAS officer Sanjay Bhoosreddy just after the encounter of Dubey.
According to the SIT report, the officials in connivance with the gangster included six sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs), one additional city magistrate (ACM), seven block development officers (BDOs), two tehsildars and two sub-tehsildars. Revenue Inspector and two Supply Inspectors.
Two village development officers and three lekhpals are also included in the list.
The commission, which submitted its report a fortnight ago, has recommended action against all of them.
The report also said that the Block Development Officer posted in Chaubepur was in constant touch with Dubey and spoke 22 times in a year from December 2019 to March 2020.
Similarly, the then Revenue Inspector, Village Development Officer, Supply Inspector were all in constant touch with Dubey. This report was prepared by the SIT on the basis of call detail records of last year.
Supporting these findings of the SIT, the commission said that it showed that the revenue officials had friendly relations with Dubey.
It also clearly states that all these officers were so friendly with the gang owner that if any common man complained against him he knew in advance and used to beat up the complainants.
The commission also supported the view of the SIT that departmental inquiry should be conducted against four SDMs and one ACM, while administrative action should be taken against four SDMs and eight tehsildars and other revenue officials.
The SIT found that at least 26 officials of the district administration and revenue department undue help to Dubey and his associates in obtaining arms licenses and fair price shop permits.
NS Supreme court A three-member inquiry commission was constituted under the chairmanship of Justice (Retd). BS ChauhanTo investigate the encounter of Dubey and his five alleged associates.
The panel also examined the circumstances that led to the rise and fall of the gang.
Earlier, the state government had constituted the SIT under the chairmanship of senior IAS officer Sanjay Bhoosreddy just after the encounter of Dubey.
According to the SIT report, the officials in connivance with the gangster included six sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs), one additional city magistrate (ACM), seven block development officers (BDOs), two tehsildars and two sub-tehsildars. Revenue Inspector and two Supply Inspectors.
Two village development officers and three lekhpals are also included in the list.
The commission, which submitted its report a fortnight ago, has recommended action against all of them.
The report also said that the Block Development Officer posted in Chaubepur was in constant touch with Dubey and spoke 22 times in a year from December 2019 to March 2020.
Similarly, the then Revenue Inspector, Village Development Officer, Supply Inspector were all in constant touch with Dubey. This report was prepared by the SIT on the basis of call detail records of last year.
Supporting these findings of the SIT, the commission said that it showed that the revenue officials had friendly relations with Dubey.
It also clearly states that all these officers were so friendly with the gang owner that if any common man complained against him he knew in advance and used to beat up the complainants.
The commission also supported the view of the SIT that departmental inquiry should be conducted against four SDMs and one ACM, while administrative action should be taken against four SDMs and eight tehsildars and other revenue officials.
.