1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 4079/2007 Prakash s/o Tatoba Bansod vs. The Government of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.J.Khandalkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.1. Shri S.K.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Shri B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents 4 to 6. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.H.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 3.12.2008 Heard Mr. Khandalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner who claims to have approached this court in public interest so as to bring the financial irregularities and other illegal affairs pertaining to the administration of Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj, Nagpur University ( the University for short) and by amending the petition the petitioner has impleaded the respondent no.7 but without praying for any relief against him. 2. In respect of the alleged financial irregularities the petitioner's case was two-fold namely (a) the university is not undertaking annual audit as is mandated under Section 103 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and (b) the irregularities pointed in the audit report for the period from 1997-98 to 2002-03 have not been complied with. The said 2` report was forwarded to the university by the office of the Accountant General (audit) II, Maharashtra State vide his letter dated 1.11.2007. The audit was carried out between 10.7.2006 to 30.9.2006. 3. On issuing notice, affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6 and the respondent no.7 also has filed his reply. The respondent no. 7 is the Head of the Central India Institute of Mass Communication which is an institution affiliated to the university like in other private un- aided college. From the record it appears that the respondent no.7 was prosecuted in Regular Criminal Case No. 3211/04 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nagpur was pleased to convict and sentence him as per his order dated 26.7.2007. Criminal Appeal no. 203/07 filed by the respondent no.7 came to be allowed by the Sessions Court on 3.10.2007 and the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 506 (I) of the Indian Penal Code has been quashed and set aside. We, therefore, do not find any case made out against the respondent no.7 in this petition. 4. So far as the action taken on the audit report is concerned, the university has filed additional affidavit by the Finance and Accounts Officer on 2.12.2008. All the queries raised have been dealt with in their entirety in this additional affidavit and it is clear that the university has submitted 3` compliance report in respect of the objections for which such report was required to be submitted. Some other objections have already been settled and waived off and in respect of the remaining objections the University has already initiated appropriate action. We may for reference deal with some such cases as under: A) E.P.F. Account: 147 employees were working under the University on fixed pay and they were not covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. On the action initiated by the Provident Fund Commissioner and more particularly as per his letter dated 12.8.2000 which was an order passed under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act,1952 the university has remitted an amount of Rs. 4.95 lacs to the Provident Fund Commissioner by way of provident fund contribution both of the employees as well as university and for the period from 1.9.2000 onwards the contribution of the respective parties has been regularised. B) The salary payment of Rs. 7.27 crores and the expenditure for releasing advertisement: 44 teachers in the university departments and 14 in the B. Ed. Colleges came to be appointed by following the due process of selection. The audit objection was that they were appointed without seeking approval from the State Government. As per the university, these posts were sanctioned on its establishment and, therefore, no fresh 4` permission was required to be sought. Even otherwise the State Government did not raise any objection for these appointments and the appointees' salary has been regularly released by the State Government. The auditor general has already released the pensionary benefits of the teachers who have retired. C) Recovery of Rs. 57.72 lacs towards H.R.A.. It has been pointed out that while releasing the salary grants the Government had paid H.R.A. to all the teachers and the amount was Rs. 57.72 lacs. However, the said amount was recovered from the next year's salary grants. The same was the case in respect of the H.R.A. payment to the Hostel Wardens amounting to Rs. 3,62,820/-. D) Recovery of water charges of Rs. 39,16,665: A common water meter has been installed for L.I.T. and the university and it has been agreed that 40% of the water charges would be shared by the university and remaining 60% would be asked to be borne by the L.I.T.. E) Special Assistance to Department of Pharmacy of Rs. 18,80,691/-. Some sophisticated instruments were purchased in the pharmacy department under the special assistance and unutilised amount was refunded to the U.G.C.. The account has been finally closed by U.G.C. and the purchase pertains to the period from 1983 to 1989. 5` F) Government share of Rs. 23,81,169:- As per the U.G.C. scheme the grants of infrastructure were released by the university to the extent of 75% and the remaining 25% share of the State Government has yet to be received. The university has been making efforts to persuade the Government to release the said amount towards its 25% contribution. G) Purchase of sophisticated instruments for Rs.11,00,037/- It has been stated that the said instrument has been purchased and is functioning and, therefore, there is no wasteful expenditure. H) Reimbursement of Rs. 11,30,000:- It has been stated that U.G.C. has sanctioned an amount of Rs.30 lacs for holding seminars, conferences etc. and the university spent the said amount. However, the U.G.C. reimbursed an amount of Rs. 18,70,000/- and spent Rs. 11,30,000/-. I) Salary on re-employment (Rs. 9,05,945/- and Rs. 2,18,935/-: It appears that some officers in the specialised area like finance and accounts and in the examination section were continued for a short tenure after their retirement and though initially salary grants were released by the State Government subsequently it was stopped and hence the university incurred 6` the expenditure for the remaining period from its general funds. J) Nelson Mandela Hostel used Rs. 7,34,550/-. This amount was misappropriated by the Head of the concerned department and the F.I.R. came to be filed against him. The criminal case is pending but in the meanwhile departmental enquiry was completed and the order of punishment was passed. The said amount has been recovered from three employees. K) L.T.C. payment of Rs. 8,41,947: When the said amount was reimbursed, the travel by taxi/ own vehicle was permissible as per the Government directions but subsequently the said benefits came to be withdrawn retrospectively and, therefore, there was no irregularity. L) Advance of T.A./D.A. of Rs. 3,02,500/-. It has been stated that the T.A./D.A. bills have been submitted and they would be regularised. Same is the case in respect of the outstanding advance of Rs. 4,70,000/-. M) The restoration of 70.09 acres land to the university which was taken over by the State Government from the university is the subject matter in the writ petition no. 1668/07 before this court. 7` 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the university has taken appropriate steps to remove the audit objections as well as for its compliance. The allegations of financial misappropriation is without any substance. Resultantly, this petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle