Vigilance court orders fresh probe into charges against KAUThrissur: A vigilance court here yesterday rejected a report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-orruption Bureau (VACB) absolving several former and present officials of Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) of charges of nepotism in the appointment
Thrissur: A vigilance court here yesterday rejected a report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-orruption Bureau (VACB) absolving several former and present officials of Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) of charges of nepotism in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff during 2006-12.
Rejecting the report, Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) K Haripal ordered a re-investigation into the charges.
Former state President of the Karshaka Yuva Morcha T Chandrasekharan had filed criminal miscellaneous petitions in 2012 and 2013 before the court against a number of persons, including former KAU Vice-Chancellor Dr K Viswambharan, former Registrar Joby V Paul, and former MLA Rajaji Mathew Thomas and incumbent V-C Dr P Rajendran.
He had alleged the officials had appointed over 500 teaching and non-teaching by accepting bribe and showing nepotism violating the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural University Act and the guidelines of University Grants Commission and Indian Council for Agricultural Research.
Besides, there was misappropriation of funds which led to financial loss and a recurring financial stringency of KAU during 2006-12, he had alleged.
The court had directed VACB to make an investigation into the matter.
The investigation team led by DySP Jyotishkumar had submitted an interim report last year stating that prima facie the allegations of the petitioner had substance.
However, in its final report VACB absolved the officials of the charges and made suggestions for smooth functioning of the university.
Counsel for the petitioner V K Satyajit pleaded that the investigation team had no right and powers to make suggestions for the improvement of the working of the University and the findings of the report were untrue and baseless and contrary to what had been stated in the interim report.
The main objective of the investigation team was to save the accused, he charged and said it was therefore essential to reject the “fabricated” report and order a re-investigation.
The court, which allowed the plea, also directed VACB to submit its re-investigation report on or before January 6 next.