KATHMANDU, July 4: The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) on Wednesday filed a corruption case against 10 officials at the Tribhuvan University (TU) Service Commission including its head for tampering with the answer sheets to alter the results of their relatives and acquaintances who had applied for different permanent positions at the university.
After over two months of investigations, the anti-graft body filed corruption cases at the Special Court against the university officials involved in conducting examinations and checking the answer sheets.
According to CIAA spokesman Pradeep Kumar Koirala Dhakal, the CIAA has sought additional punishment for five officials including the service commission chair Chaitanya Sharma, member Chaitanya Pokharel, administration chief Parashuram Koirala and professors duo Teknath Dhakal and Govinda Dhakal for alleged irregularities in the examination process and checking of answer sheets.
12 NEA staffers held for tampering electricity meters
Similarly the CIAA has sought punishment for chief office assistant Bachhuram Pandey, staff Indira Tiwari Vantana, assistant professors Rajeshwar Neupane, Tara Prakash Paudel and Ram Bahadur Pandey Chhetri for misusing their positions.
The chairperson of the service commission has been accused of getting involved in the examination process in order to help their relatives get the post of permanent lecturer.
Investigation by the anti-graft body found that the accused had altered the marks of at least 37 answer sheets to help their relatives and friends pass the exam. CIAA has stated in the charge sheet that 2 to 30 marks have been added to the actual marks obtained by over 30 examinees -- their relatives and friends -- while marks of some examinees were intentionally reduced to prevent them from being selected.
The state-run university had conducted written examinations for 16 different administrative and technical positions on April 27.
The CIAA charge-sheet states that although the answer sheets were double-coded to ensure unbiased evaluation, the accused themselves were involved in both the coding processes.
