The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate a case based on a private complaint alleging the misappropriation of funds by a former officiating Director of the Human Resources Development Center at Pondicherry University.
A single judge Justice G Jayachandran pointed out that while the CBI had sought prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the response from the Under Secretary to the Government was absent. After the filing of the writ, the response indicated that the University’s Executive Council had chosen not to grant sanction.
The bench stated, “Even after a lapse of 4 months, the department concerned has not reacted or responded to the request, and what they have communicated belatedly after filing this petition is ignored. As a result, the CBI is requested to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation.”
The court highlighted that, given the status of the person under scrutiny as a public servant, the CBI had sought prior approval under the Act. Additionally, the CBI had sought this sanction after being content with the available materials to initiate a preliminary inquiry.
However, the court was informed that the Under Secretary had not responded to the CBI’s request, even after multiple reminders. This led the complainant to approach the court for guidance.
Furthermore, the court observed that the CBI had discovered incriminating evidence indicating that Prof S. Hariharan, who served as the Director of HRDC (Human Resource Development Centre) from 2008 to 2016, had allegedly misappropriated funds through fake and forged bills, causing a loss of Rs. 2.25 Crores to the Government of India.
Justice Jayachandran also noted that the Finance Section’s report had been sent to the University’s Internal Audit Wing, which reported to the Vice Chancellor that Rs. 27 Lakh had been misappropriated via fake bills. The CBI had additionally unearthed evidence suggesting that Prof. Hariharan had purportedly bribed the Vice Chancellor with Rs. 50 lakhs to evade action.
The court recognized Section 17A of the Act, introduced to safeguard officers from unjust prosecution, stating that approval should be granted within three months or an additional one-month period, after which it is deemed to have been accorded.
“If they wait for more than the period prescribed, there is every possibility of screening the evidence. The provision which is incorporated for protecting the honest officers cannot be allowed to be misused and abused to protect the dishonest officers to enable them to screen incriminating material against them,” the bench observed.
In the present instance, the court noted the absence of sanction or response within the stipulated timeframe from the concerned department. Hence, considering such belated communications dismissible, the court concluded the petition, instructing the CBI to proceed with the investigation.
