Patna | The Central Bureau of Investigation (Central Bureau of Investigation) has, in its latest chargesheet in the widely discussed land for jobs case, detailed what it describes as a coordinated mechanism used to influence railway recruitments. The chargesheet levels serious allegations against former Indian Administrative Service officer R. K. Mahajan, asserting that he played an active role in facilitating appointments while holding a position linked to the Railways.
According to the investigation agency, the case pertains to a period during which appointments were allegedly made to Group-D posts under the category of “substitute” recruitments. The CBI has alleged that these appointments were granted in exchange for the transfer of land by beneficiaries or their relatives, describing the arrangement as a quid pro quo that bypassed established recruitment norms.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
The chargesheet states that the recruitment process in question deviated from prescribed standards of transparency, merit-based selection, and procedural fairness. Investigators claim that instead of open competition, appointments were influenced by recommendations and instructions conveyed through official channels, resulting in undue advantage to select individuals and causing loss to public interest.
A key pillar of the prosecution’s case rests on statements recorded from three senior railway officials who served as general managers in different railway zones during the relevant period. The agency has named all three as approvers in the case and relied heavily on their testimonies to outline how the alleged process functioned.
According to the chargesheet, one witness stated that he received an envelope through official railway mail containing multiple applications for appointment. The envelope, the witness claimed, bore markings indicating that it originated from a ministerial-level office. He further stated that this was followed by telephonic communication directing him to process the applications, which the agency argues points to direct intervention in recruitment decisions.
Another witness told investigators that he was personally contacted and asked to expedite the appointment of certain candidates. He also stated that displeasure was expressed at higher levels over delays in recruitment, which he interpreted as pressure to ensure compliance with the instructions conveyed to him. The CBI has argued that such communication suggests an attempt to influence the pace and outcome of the recruitment process.
A third witness has claimed that he was handed a list of candidates and informed that the names were being forwarded on the basis of ministerial recommendations. According to the agency, when these statements are read together, they indicate a deliberate and coordinated effort to secure appointments in exchange for tangible benefits.
The chargesheet notes that at the current stage of proceedings—when the court is considering whether charges should be framed—witness statements are required to be assessed at face value. The agency has argued that it is not required at this point to conclusively establish guilt, but only to demonstrate that sufficient material exists to proceed with a full trial.
The CBI has alleged that the actions attributed to the former officer amount to abuse of official position. According to the agency, the alleged facilitation of appointments was neither supported by public interest nor justified under recruitment rules. The chargesheet refers to provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with sections of the Indian Penal Code dealing with criminal conspiracy.
So far, no detailed public response has been issued by the accused former officer specifically addressing the allegations set out in the chargesheet. Legal experts point out that the matter is currently at a preliminary judicial stage, and that the accused will have the opportunity to contest the evidence during trial through cross-examination and legal arguments.
The case has once again drawn attention to long-standing concerns around transparency and accountability in government recruitment processes. Investigators view the land for jobs case as part of a broader alleged conspiracy involving administrative influence and private gain, the full extent of which remains subject to judicial scrutiny.
The court is now expected to examine the chargesheet to determine whether formal charges should be framed and against whom. It will also consider whether further investigation is required on specific aspects of the case. For now, the disclosures contained in the chargesheet have brought renewed focus to the controversy, ensuring that the land for jobs case remains firmly in the public and legal spotlight as proceedings move into the next phase.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
