"Policy change not attributable singly against an individual", says Allahabad HC while quashing criminal case filed against KGMU professor
High Court has further held that university authorities are expected to remain committed to the upgradation of educational standards and work collectively to boost educational values by respecting policy decisions taken for the welfare of the institution.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a professor of the King George Medical University, in relation to the purchase of laptops for online facilitation of medical exams.
Court noted that subsequent change of policy decision and internal conflicts of the administration, does not have any trappings of dishonest or criminal intent that could be attributed singly against an individual.
A Division Bench of Justice AR Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav, while allowing the petition, observed, “The policy decision of holding online examinations was clearly a collective decision and the same does not seem to have any trappings of dishonest or criminal intent that could be attributed singly against an individual. On reversal of such a policy decision by the succeeding administration which resulted into the distribution of laptops to the offices in order to save such equipment from going unused, by no stretch of imagination would attract an offence under Section 409 IPC that could be attributed against any person having performed duty in the accomplishment of online examination process jointly or severally. The Investigating officer as well as the supervising authority having clearly conducted the proceedings unfairly and with an approach of utmost victimization against the petitioner clearly indicates that it does not serve the object for which the scope for booking a criminal case is postulated under criminal law. The lack of honesty has rather been fished out baselessly to settle scores on personal vendetta.”
It was further added that for any irregularity administrative or financial, it is permissible for the University to initiate disciplinary proceedings which in the ordinary course cannot be substituted by criminal proceedings but in the instant case, the haste on the part of the Chief Proctor in naming the petitioner in his letter dated 12.6.2020 was clearly driven by some ulterior motive which reflected nothing but the abuse of the process of law.
“In our considered opinion, the whole exercise lacks the sanctity of law. The lodging of FIR in a hurried manner and without allowing the resolution of the Executive Council passed subsequently on 27.6.2020 to discover any criminal intent, the investigating agency having failed to act fairly, leaves us with no manner of doubt that the entire action is nothing but an abuse of the process of law”, Court said.
Two primary issues before the court in the present matter were, whether a shift of policy decision of one administration and its reversal by the succeeding administration can be a subject matter of criminal prosecution and how further investigation could go on once the executive council in its decision, resolved for looking into the matter from a different angle.
Brief Background
The present writ petition questioned the legality of FIR giving rise to case crime no. 56 of 2021 registered under Section 409, 420 IPC at PS Chowk, District, Lucknow.
In a meeting held on August 13, 2014, the Vice Chancellor of the university opined that the IT committee of the university requires to devise a method wherein 300 students could appear for online examination at a time and their result be declared at the end of their test. The minutes of the meeting were made part of the annual report which was duly considered and resolved by the Executive council of the university.
On approval of the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner placed an order for supply of 300 laptops from M/s Uptron Powertronics, an authorised government nodal agency. Payments were accordingly made vide cheque dated 31.03.2016.
In a meeting held on May 29, 2017, it was decided by the Executive Council that due to lack of infrastructure and as per MCI norms, it was not possible to conduct online examinations and the said laptops may be distributed amongst the administrative officials and other departments of the university, so that the purchase does not turn out obsolete. The said shift in the policy decision was taken without there being any complaint in regard to the purchase of laptops and it having been specifically mentioned in the agenda that the laptops were purchased with the approval of the then Vice Chancellor.
Following this, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Ss. 409 and 420 IPC, 1860 alleging misappropriation of finances against him.
Case Title: Ashish Wakhlu v. State of UP | Criminal WP No. 5682 of 2021