9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant herein seeking discharge from the criminal case pursuant to a charge sheet filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by the Vigilance Police Department. 3) Brief facts: (a) The Government of Kerala was trying to establish a Sanskrit University in the State from the year 1972 onwards. On 15.07.1991, the appellant was appointed as Special Officer for creating the first Sanskrit University in the State. On 16.01.1993, the State issued a Government Order directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to acquire the land for the establishment of the University. The entire land of 42.5 acres, so acquired in Kalady (the holy birth place of Sree Sankaracharya) in Ernakulam District which was handed over to the University by the District Collector of Ernakulam for establishing the University consisted of low-lying and waterlogged paddy fields and any development work could be started only after it was filled up with earth. Before starting the work of filling up, the appellant, who was functioning as the Chief Secretary to State Government at the State Headquarters, had consulted several experts in the field including the Chief Engineer of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the protection under Section 50(3) of the Act. (f) On 19.12.2008, the appellant filed an application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short the Code ) being CMP No. 2933 of 2008 in CC No. 31 of 2005 in the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur for discharge. By order dated 29.08.2009, the Special Judge dismissed the above said application on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to get the protection of Section 50 of the Act as being the Vice-Chancellor, the appellant was a public servant. (g) Against the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 1606 of 2010 before the High Court of Kerala. By order dated 12.07.2010, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. 4) Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 5) The only allegation on the appellant was that while functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the University he was found guilty for filling of earth in the land acquired for the University in a most perfunctory and irregular manner wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether or not a prosecution can be allowed to proceed in the face of Section 50(2) of the Act without the sanction of the Syndicate of the University, it is useful to refer the relevant provision which reads as:- 50. Protection of acts done in good faith (1) XXX (2) No suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any officer or other employee of the University for any act done or purported to have been done under this Act, or the Statutes or the Ordinances or the Regulations without the previous sanction of the Syndicate. (3) XXX The headnote makes it clear that any act done in good faith is protected. The appellant, being Vice-Chancellor of the University, is one of the Officers of the University in terms of Section 23 of the Act. In that event, it is not in dispute that Section 50(2) is applicable to the appellant and in respect of any act done under the Act or Statutes or Ordinances or Regulations, no suit or prosecution or other proceeding be initiated against him without the previous sanction of the Syndicate. Inasmuch as sub-Section 2 used the word shall , previous sanction of the Syndicate is a pre-condition or mandate before initiating either civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment To The Director Vigilance Anti-Corruption Bureau Thiruvananthapuram Sir, Sub: Withdrawal of cases pending against Shri R Ramachandran Nair, former Vice-Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Reg. Ref. 1. Govt. letter of even No. dated 07.10.2005. 2. Your letter No. C5/SJK/16465/2000 dated 03.12.05 18.02.06. I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited and to inform you that a further examination of facts in respect of the three cases viz. (CC No. 21/2000 and CC No. 49/2000) of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No. 31 of 2005 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Thrissur it is found that steps were taken by the University Centres at the earliest possible date and it was due to such speedy action that the University which was being contemplated for a very long time became a reality within such a short period of 1994-1996. As the former Vice-Chancellor had acted in good faith in the discharge of the functions imposed on him under the University Act, he is fully eligible for the protection of Section 50(3) of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994, which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take required steps for formation of the University under the Act, the Government allotted 42.5 acres of land which was water logged and any development work could be started only after it was to be filled up with earth. It is also available from the records that the estimate was prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer and based on which tenders were called for and it is not in dispute that the appellant accepted the lowest tender which is of lesser amount than the one prescribed by the Engineer. It can also be seen that before the work was started, the appellant had consulted several experts in the field including the higher officials of the State and actually brought them to the site regarding the filling up of the earth. Further, though in the FIR, the complainant had claimed that the appellant had obtained a pecuniary advantage of around Rs. 59,51,543/- whereas in the chargesheet filed by the prosecution in the Court, it has come down to less than 5 per cent of the original estimate, nearly, Rs. 2,68,358/-, admittedly, there is no mention in the chargesheet about the huge difference in the calculation of the loss between the FIR and the chargesheet. Further, when the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
