Two PU employees implicated in result tampering case

A senior university official stated that the apex body would also look into whether money had exchanged hands and a quot;suitablequot; punishment would be awarded in the matter. He added that the matter of possibility of recurrence of such cases or possibility of a racket would also be probed.

The alleged fraud first came to light as early as 1996 with the case of Jai Prakash, a candidate who appeared for the B.A. Part I exam in 1995 and failed the exam after not clearing the subjects of Public Administration and Political Science. After he applied for revaluation, the candidate was declared passed.

However, according to the inquiry into the matter conducted by Justice retd G. S. Chahal, the student was awarded 72 marks instead of 57 in Political Science and 73 instead of 63 in Public Administration, to enable him to be declared as having passed. The anomaly reportedly came to light when the candidate8217;s admission form for the next class was scrutinised.

The inquiry has found that R. S. Nagra, a junior assistant in the examination branch, who was in charge of a set for tabulation of results, quot;fraudently prepared false recordquot;, while Urmil Sharma, an assistant who issued a certificate that the result had been checked and re-checked after tabulation and scrutiny, has been held quot;guilty of serious misconduct, having not performed her duty diligentlyquot;.

The inquiry officer, while absolving two others of the charges, has also observed: quot;However, each of the employees has tried to shift his responsibility on the others.quot;

Further probe into the results prepared by Nagra and some others has found him guilty of tampering with the results of at least five other students. Inquiries into the cases were also conducted by Justice retd Chahal in December last year.

In one such case, Sarabjit Kaur, who appeared for B.A. Part I exam in April 1996, was declared passed in October that year. However, later during the scrutiny of her admission form for B.A. Part II, it was found that she quot;had not cleared even a single paperquot;. Nagra has been held responsible for preparing false records and forging documents.

In other cases, Indu Bala, who appeared in B.A. Part I in 1996, and Mandeep Singh Brar, who appreared in October 1996, were declared passed after fake entries were made in their result slips, the inquiry reports point out.

Nagra has been held responsible for the fake entries. In a case pertaining to Jaswinder Singh, who appeared for B.A. Part I in October, he has been charged with adjusting an amount of Rs 6,300 pending in form of fees against the candidate8217;s name.