The Madras High Court has instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe a complaint of misappropriation of funds to the tune of ₹2.25 crore by authorities of Pondicherry University (PU).
Disposing of a petition filed by the president of the Democratic Youth Federation of India, A. Anand, Justice G. Jayachandran said, “the CBI is requested to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation.”
Mr. Anand had approached the High Court after the CBI took time to act upon his complaint of misappropriation of funds sanctioned by the Centre to the Human Resources Development Centre (HRDC) at the PU, for conducting orientation courses and refresher programmes for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college.
The petitioner had approached the CBI after the finance section of the Pondicherry University found misappropriation of funds by the then Director of HRDC, S. Hariharan, who had forged bills under the pretext of conducting 92 orientation and refresher programmes for the staff. Mr. Hariharan officiated as the director of the Centre from 2008 to 2016.
The complaint was lodged by the petitioner with the CBI on February 4, 2022. In his complaint, he sought a probe against Mr. Hariharan, Vice-Chancellor of the University Gurmeet Singh, Finance Officer D. Lazar and officials in the Vice-Chancellor’s office for misuse of Government of India funds, forgery, fabrication of bills and for protection of the culprits after taking bribe.
After the complaint was filed, the agency conducted a preliminary inquiry and found sufficient material to register the complaint. As the case involved public servants, the agency sought permission from the Centre under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for the registration of the case and to proceed with the investigation further.
The CBI’s public prosecutor, during the hearing, stated that after its repeated reminders, the Ministry of Education had intimated on June 23, this year, that the executive council of the University has not granted sanction for the investigation.
“This Court, on perusing the status report filed by the Sub-Inspector of police, finds that the scrutiny of the complaint dated 04.02.2022 had disclosed sufficient material to register the complaint. That is the reason why sanction under section 17 A has been sought,” the Court said.
The order noted that section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been introduced to protect officers only from malicious prosecution. “The provision for protecting the honest officers cannot be allowed to be misused and abused to protect the dishonest officers to enable them to screen incriminating materials against them,” the order said.
If the authorities who are supposed to accord sanction to register the case do not apply their minds and take a decision within a period of 3 months or within a further period of one month, extended for the reason stated, then the investigating agency, should take that the sanction is deemed to have been accorded. If they wait for more than the prescribed time, there is every possibility of evidence getting tampered with, the court observed.
Mr. Anand, in his petition, had cited the reports of the Finance Commission and Internal Audit Wing of the PU for raising the issue of misappropriation of funds. He had complained that the Vice-Chancellor had even appointed his own men to overlook the findings of the Internal Audit Wing.
.
