E-Paper
HC: Keep decision on IIM Rohtak director in abeyance till Apr 2
The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj acted on Sharma’s plea filed against a March 5 decision of the central government to order a probe into allegations of financial bungling at the institute and the concealment of vital information about Sharma’s academic qualification.
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday directed Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Rohtak to put any decision regarding director Dheeraj Sharma in abeyance till April 2.
The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj acted on Sharma’s plea filed against a March 5 decision of the central government to order a probe into allegations of financial bungling at the institute and the concealment of vital information about Sharma’s academic qualification. Sharma has also challenged a March 13 decision of the education ministry asking board of governors (BoG) of the institute to either suspend Sharma or send him on leave till the completion of probe.
The petition was taken up by the high court on March 18, 19 and 20, however, arguments could not be concluded. As additional solicitor general of India Satya Pal Jain stated that he would require more time to conclude the remaining arguments and also apprised court about some other important matters, where his presence was required during the day, the court deferred hearing for April 2 and ordered that BoG, which meets in the afternoon (on Thursday) may continue with the meeting but decisions, if any taken, be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
It was on March 5, the President Droupadi Murmu, in her capacity as “visitor of the institute” who holds powers in this regard, had ordered the probe. and given three months’ time to IIM Mumbai director Manoj Tiwari to complete the probe and submit a report to the Centre.
The probe is mainly into Sharma’s tenure, which started in 2017. Sharma is also facing allegations that his bachelor’s degree is in the second division, whereas the requirement for the post of director was of first division.
His first term as the IIM-Rohtak director came to an end on February 9, 2022, and in the same year, he got a second term on February 28.
In the plea before the high court, Sharma has argued that the government’s decision to invoke Section 10-A of the 2017 Act is illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction as alleged commission of offence has been stated be of period prior to August 2023, when the amendment to 2017 Act was carried out. The power to conduct inquiry can be prospective and can’t be retrospective,” he has claimed.
He has also argued that non-submission of degree is subject matter of another petition before the high court and there is an interim order in his favour. As regards the question of audit and financial irregularities, same has been closed by the CAG by conducting special audit on the request from respondents, he claims.
On the other hand, Centre through Jain has argued that the “visitor of the institute” as per Section 10A of the IIM Act has the power to initiate the probe and was done with “proper application of mind”. During the arguments, the Centre has also claimed “concealment of material facts” by Sharma before the ministry as well as before the court and has alleged that he was in the “habit” of doing so.
