WP(PIL)/4/2015 of Bishnu Rai, General Secretary Of Ravangla Astha Organisation and Anr. Vs The Union Of India and Ors on 19 September 2017

1. Pointing out gross irregularities including financial irregularities and illegalities committed by the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5, the Petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition, being WP(PIL) No.18 of 2000, seeking a direction to the State or the concerned Ministry, to carry out thorough investigation as to the allegations raised. Disposing of the Petition on 23-06-2014, the Division Bench of this High Court ordered as follows;

(vi) Parties shall bear their own costs.”

2. In compliance thereto, the Petitioner filed a representation dated 28-07-2014 before the Respondent No.2, who on being satisfied prima facie about the allegations, constituted a Fact Finding Committee (for short “FFC”) to enquire thereto. A prayer for extension of time to dispose of the representation dated 28-07-2014 was made by the Respondent No.2 before this Court and allowed. Despite such extension, the Report of the Committee was not made available to the Petitioner, giving rise to the instant Writ Petition, seeking disclosure of the Report of the FFC to the Petitioners, by furnishing it before this Court with a prayer to the Court to direct any Law Enforcing Agency to take up legal proceedings against the Respondents No.4, 5 and 6.

3. The Respondents No.3 and 5 filed their respective Counter-Affidavit disputing and denying the allegations levelled as baseless. Respondent No.4 in his Affidavit also resisted the allegations levelled by the Petitioners as false and vexatious and made with the malicious intention of damaging the Respondent‟s reputation.

4. The Respondent No.2 for their part filed the Report of the FFC, which was placed before this Court in CM Appl. No.258 of 2015 and taken on record on 21-09-2015. It was submitted that the Report of FFC was under active consideration of the Government for further course of action.

5. On 09-07-2016 by filing I.A. No.03 of 2016, the Respondent No.2, informed that, based on the Report of the FFC, the Ministry had issued a Notice to the Respondent No.4 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.2,20,671/- (Rupees two lakhs, twenty thousand, six hundred and seventy one), only, on account of irregular payment of electricity bill made by the Respondent No.3, purportedly for the second residence of the Respondent No.4. An Audit Team had also been constituted to complete the process of auditing/examining the allegations of irregularity in submission of Utilization Certificate for the year 2010-11 and irregularity in appointment of a Caretaker for Siliguri Guest House.

6. The Respondent No.2 by filing I.A. No.05 of 2016, on 03-10-2016, informed that after examining the aforesaid issues, Report had been submitted by the Audit Team and was under consideration of the University Grants Commission (UGC). By the same I.A., two letters, i.e., one dated 12-09-2016 addressed to Respondent No.4 by the Deputy Secretary of the Respondent No.2 and another letter dated 13-04-2016 addressed to the Secretary, UGC, by the Deputy Secretary of the Respondent No.2, were also placed on record. The first letter allowed the request of the Respondent No.4 to pay the amount of Rs.2,20,671/- (Rupees two lakhs, twenty thousand, six hundred and seventy one), only, in twenty equal monthly instalments, while the second letter pertained to constitution of a Team, for examining the aforesaid two allegations. So far as the Fact Finding Report (FFR) was concerned, it was canvassed by Respondent No.2 that some allegations were found to be true, some unfounded and in respect of some allegations the matter was to be enquired further.

7. On 03-11-2016, as no response was forthcoming from the Respondent No.2 with regard to proposed action against the concerned Respondents, despite the observations in order dated 14-10-2016, this Court ordered that an Independent Agency, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), be directed to examine the alleged irregularities in the functioning of the University and appropriate action be taken, as advised, as per Law. Consequently, Notice was issued to the Additional Director, CBI (In-Charge, N/E States), who put in his appearance through Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Kolkata, W.B., on 10-11-2016 and was directed to examine the matter and submit a Preliminary Report, within a period of four weeks.

8. In the interim, the Respondent No.3 filed I.A. No.06 of 2016 seeking modification of the Order passed by this Court on 03-11-2016 and contended that the FFC had examined all allegations levelled against the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 and found the same to be incorrect, hence, the CBI was not required to further investigate into the matter. This Court observed that no further order is required in this Application at that stage.

9. The CBI thereafter submitted a Preliminary Status Report to the effect that it was examining a large number of financial transactions pertaining to Sikkim University for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and sought time for detailed enquiry and report. On 19-06-2017, the CBI filed a Report under sealed cover, with copy made over to the Central Government Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2.

10. Now, the Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit on 07-09-2017 submitting therein that on perusal of the Report of the CBI, it is found that some prima facie evidence existed against the Respondent No.4, towards which, the CBI proposed to register a

Shri Bishnu Rai & Another vs. Union of India & Others Regular Case against the Respondent No.4 and some other suspects. In view of the said circumstances, the Respondent No.2 submits that the Affidavit dated 26-10-2016, being I.A. No.11 of 2016, and an application for modification of Orders dated 03-11-2016 and 10-11-2016, being I.A. No.12 of 2016 may be treated as withdrawn. That, the Respondent has no objection to the CBI proceeding on the basis of their findings.

11. In view of the said Affidavit and the aforesaid submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the CBI take necessary steps, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court. During the process, the CBI shall afford fair and sufficient opportunity to the Respondent No.4 to place his matter, before the Agency, with no reservations.

12. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/-

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) ( Satish K. Agnihotri )

Judge Chief Justice

19-09-2017 19-09-2017

Approved for reporting : Yes

Internet : Yes