• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

Pune collector Suha Diwase refuted the harassment allegation laid out against him by trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar, whose candidature was cancelled by the UPSC on Wednesday over ‘malpractice’. Diwase said Khedkar’s claims were ‘nonsensical' and 'made as an afterthought’.

“She was attached to the district Collector's office from June 3 to 14. During this time, I met her only thrice and that too in the company of my officers and lawyers. After June 14, she was attached to the office of the Divisional Commissioner,” The Indian Express quoted Diwase as saying.

ALSO READ: Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute: 'All 18 Pleas By Hindus Maintainable,' Rules Allahabad HC Dismissing Muslim Side's Plea

Diwase said Khedkar did not make harassment claims in her letter to the state government over her report and it was only when she got transferred to Washim that she levelled allegations.

On Wednesday, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) cancelled the selection of trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar and permanently barred her from all future exams and selections. In a statement, the UPSC said Khedkar was found "guilty of violating CSE-2022 Rules."

"The UPSC has examined the available records carefully and found her guilty of acting in contravention of the provisions of the CSE-2022 Rules. Her provisional candidature for the CSE-2022 has been cancelled and she has also been debarred permanently from all the future Examinations/Selections of the UPSC," the Commission said in the statement.

Besides, the UPSC served a show cause notice to Khedkar, seeking her reply on the issue of fraudulently availing attempts beyond the permissible limit. She dodged the notice and failed to file a reply despite an extension given to her.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump Eyes Black Americans’ Support, Claims To Be ‘Best President Since Abraham Lincoln’ 

A case under sections 420 (cheating), 464 (making a document in the name of a fictitious person), 465 (forgery) and 471 (passing off a forged document as genuine) of IPC and under sections 89 and 91 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and 66D of the Information Technology Act was registered against her.