RAVINDER JUGRAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An affidavit is filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand stating that, from out of the conclusion drawn on seven points in the Inquiry Officer's report dtd. 27/3/2017, the Additional Chief Secretary had held that five conclusions could not be proved; in respect of Conclusion No. 3, pertaining to admission of students through agents middlemen and who had got signed the withdrawal forms cheques from the students, the said conclusion charge could only be verified after investigation by the SIT; and if Conclusion No. 3 is proved in the inquiry by the SIT, then action would be initiated against the Sub Divisional Magistrate who had conducted the physical verification. With regards Conclusion No. 1, pertaining to attendance of students, the said conclusion charge is stated to be partially not proved.

(2.) When we asked Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, as to what the report meant by stating that the charge was partially not proved, he would draw our attention to the report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary of Social Welfare Department, wherein, with regards Conclusion No. 1, it is stated that the statements of around 18 students were recorded, as per which one student had put in attendance of 55% and all the others were absent, yet scholarship was paid to them. It defies reason that, on the basis of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Additional Chief Secretary himself, he should hold that the conclusion was partially not proved. As to how payment of scholarships to 17, of the 18 students, who were absent throughout their course would justify the conclusion that the charge was partially not proved is not known. Yet another issue of concern is that, despite the assurance given by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in April, 2017 that the matter would be investigated by the SIT, the SIT has failed to register even the FIR till July, 2018, and even thereafter not much progress appears to have made in the investigation.

(3.) Dr. T.C. Manju Nath, Superintendent of Police and in-charge of the SIT is present in Court today. When we asked him as to why there was inordinate delay in registration of the FIR, and in causing investigation thereafter, he would state that, despite several letters having been addressed by him to the District Social Welfare Department and the Joint Directors, no response was forthcoming necessitating his having to register an FIR based on the documents received from the private individuals examined by him.