Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(iii) The University also alleged that the petitioner took reimbursement of Rs.50595/- by submitting fake computer generated bills and payment receipts, which amounts to financial impropriety in violation of GFR 2017 and GFR
155.
(iv) The University also alleged serious irregularities against the petitioner with financial implication in several proposals relating to Engineering Sections. It has been contended that a two member Enquiry Committee was constituted to look into the matter, which observed that the Finance Section was bypassed without proper scrutiny and the proposals were directly placed before the Vice- Chancellor by the Registrar for approval.
Without making any observation on the correctness or otherwise of the same, in the opinion of this Court, it was also not an irregularity which warranted "immediate action" by placing the petitioner under suspension within the purview of Section 12(3) of the Act. It could have been earlier placed before the Executive Council for its consideration.
31. The University also alleged that the petitioner took reimbursement of Rs.50595/- by submitting fake computer generated bills and payment receipts, which amounts to financial impropriety in violation of GFR 2017 and GFR 155.
(ii) As regards the allegation that the petitioner took reimbursement of Rs.50595/- by submitting fake computer generated bills and payment receipts, which amounts to financial impropriety in violation of GFR 2017 and GFR 155, it has been submitted that the matter pertains to the fencing of saplings planted on World Environment Day on 05.06.2019 and the delay in levelling the charge is itself indicative of the malice in fact as well as in law. It has been also submitted that the bill forwarded by the petitioner was duly scrutinised by the Finance Section of the University and was approved by the Vice-Chancellor and if there were any irregularity, the Finance Section ought to have pointed out at the relevant time, which are not done. In any event if there was any error, the same was procedural and cannot be construed as misconduct.