I am going to conclude this news story at this point and will not hesitate to write more, if needed.
rc sharma
Jammu, Feb 09: Who is the official responsible for forging or scanning the signature of Mukhtar Ahmed, JKAS, the then Deputy Secretary, and issuing orders? How many orders have been altered by placing forged or scanned signatures of the then Deputy Secretary of the School Education Department? Have the signatures of other officers posted within the School Education Department been forged, scanned, or altered, or is it solely the signature of Mukhtar Ahmed that has been compromised? Apart from Government Order No. 25-Edu of 2022 dated 20-01-2022, have any other orders been forged, or was this the only instance? Does the confession letter of Tehseen Ahmed hold any legal validity? These questions are causing considerable concern among the public, and it is imperative for the relevant authorities to provide clear and detailed answers to restore trust and ensure accountability within the department.
In a significant development, an FIR No. 0032 was registered on March 15, 2023, with the Crime Branch, Jammu, after 419 days of the alleged forgery of official orders within the School Education Department. The complaint was formally filed by the then Under Secretary, Mayank Sharma, under sections 429, 465, 468, 120B, and 7 of the Indian Penal Code. This case has raised serious concerns about the integrity of official documents and the potential involvement of multiple individuals in the forgery.
The alleged forgery incident: The case centers around the modification of a government order, allegedly carried out by Tehseen Ahmed, who was serving as a Personal Assistant to the then Deputy Secretary, Mukhtar Ahmed. According to reports, Tehseen Ahmed confessed to altering the original order to include the name of his cousin, Nazia Akhter, without the knowledge or consent of any other department officials.
Investigative approach and recommendations: Given the complexity of the case and the potential involvement of multiple parties, it is imperative for the investigating agency to conduct a thorough and multi-faceted inquiry. Key areas of focus should include:
1. Scrutiny of Orders Issued During the Relevant Period: A comprehensive review of all orders issued during the time Tehseen Ahmed served as PA to Deputy Secretary Mukhtar Ahmed is essential. This will help identify any other potential alterations or irregularities.
2. Collaboration with the Principal Secretary’s Office: Engaging with the Principal Secretary’s office to verify the authenticity of the approvals and sanctions granted during the period in question can provide additional insights into the legitimacy of the orders.
3. Examination of Deputy Secretary Mukhtar Ahmed’s Orders: A detailed examination of the orders issued by Mukhtar Ahmed himself is necessary to assess their genuineness and to determine if any were subject to unauthorized modifications.
Public concern and anticipated outcomes: The public is keenly observing the progress of this investigation, with expectations that the Crime Branch, Jammu, will diligently pursue all leads to uncover the full extent of the forgery. The community anticipates that the investigation will not only identify the individuals directly involved but also uncover any underlying conspiracies that may have facilitated the fraudulent activities. The ultimate goal is to uphold the rule of law and ensure that such breaches of trust are addressed with the utmost seriousness.
As the investigation unfolds, it is crucial for the authorities to maintain transparency and keep the public informed about the progress and findings. This approach will reinforce public confidence in the integrity of the School Education Department and the broader administrative framework.
In conclusion, the forgery case within Jammu’s School Education Department underscores the need for stringent oversight and accountability in governmental operations. It serves as a reminder of the vulnerabilities that can exist within administrative systems and the importance of vigilance in safeguarding public trust.
(Concluded)
