Maliwal, who was allowed by it to go to USA in May, did not inform it on her return to India despite its specific directions from the court, which has warned her to be careful in future.
"Perusal of order dated May 5 reveals that accused (Maliwal) was directed to apprise the court qua her arrival in India from USA on the date of her arrival itself. However, though accused returned on July 1, she had not informed the court...
Maliwal had filed an application apprising the court about her arrival in India on July 7 when the matter was listed for hearing.
The court had in May allowed Maliwal to travel to USA from June 1-30 as she was invited by the US Department of State for a programme.
More From This Section
It had allowed her plea while asking her to furnish a copy of her passport after its renewal and inform the court immediately after her return.
The court directed the IO to file a detailed status report in this regard by July 12 and listed the matter for further proceedings on August 1.
Maliwal, who was earlier granted bail by the court in the matter, was also present at the hearing.
She was summoned as accused by the court on January 18 after taking cognisance of the ACB's charge sheet for the alleged offence of criminal misconduct by public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act that entails a maximum punishment of seven years jail.
The first charge sheet was filed by ACB on December 21, 2016 against Maliwal in connection with the alleged irregularities in the appointment of AAP workers in DCW.
The ACB had taken up the probe on a complaint by former DCW chief Barkha Shukla Singh, who had alleged that several AAP supporters were given plum posts in the women's panel.
Singh, a former MLA, had filed the complaint against Maliwal and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on August 11, 2016, alleging that many illegal practices were adopted by them to financially benefit aides and associates of the Aam Aadmi Party at the cost of public exchequer.
ACB had said it was found during the probe that Maliwal, in connivance with others, had allegedly abused her official position and deliberately ignored the procedures and rules to employ associates or AAP workers beyond the authorised sanctioned strength of 26 posts, causing unauthorised benefits to them at the cost of public exchequer.
It was also found that the appointments were made without inviting any application by way of publication or constituting a selection board.