Reinstate KK Singh, says government

Ashish Tripathi / TNN / Jan 17, 2008, 04:00 IST

Share

AA

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

CSMMU administration enumerates technical difficulties, writes to governor-chancellor for 'directions'.

LUCKNOW: The state government feels that Dr KK Singh, suspended after being found guilty of misconduct, is innocent. Hence, it has asked the vice-chancellor of the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University (CSMMU) to revoke his suspension.
But, ironically, government directions clash with university's inquiry conducted by a high court retired judge, which found the charges against Singh to be true.
Vice-chancellor Prof SK Agarwal has resisted the move by informing the government about "difficulties" in reinstating Singh and has also communicated it to the governor, who is also the chancellor of the university. University sources said that the V-C had also sought "instructions and directions" from the governor as to how to tackle the case.
It might be mentioned here that the Raj Bhawan had pulled up university officials in July, 2006 when the latter had allowed Singh to rejoin service. The decision was reverted overnight by the then vice-chancellor.

Assistant professor in the department of surgery, Singh is said to be close to the ruling party.
He was arrested by the CBI in January 2004 on charges of being involved in All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examinations (AIPGMEE) paper leak, following which he was suspended from the university only to be reinstated later.
In January 2006, Singh was suspended again on charges of misconduct, wilful negligence of duty and incompetence. A three-member inquiry committee was formed by the CSMMU to probe into the allegations. The committee issued a charge-sheet to Singh but refused to continue further following retirement of the then vice-chancellor Prof Mahendra Bhandari.

The matter lingered on for a year. In May 2007, the then vice-chancellor Prof Hari Gautam, formed a committee headed by retired justice Shailendra Saxena to continue probe against Singh. The move was challenged by Singh in the court, which, however, upheld the CSMMU's decision but directed to complete the inquiry within two months and take an action within 15 days of the completion of the inquiry.
Justice Saxena committee found Singh guilty of three out of four charges levelled against him.
However, in August 2008, Singh lodged a complaint with the medical education department that he was being 'victimised' by the university administration. Following this, the department formed a committee headed by RK Singh, managing director, Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, to probe Singh's allegations.
Last week, the CSMMU authorities received a letter from the medical education department which stated that the inquiry conducted by RK Singh had found KK Singh innocent. It also directed the present vice-chancellor Prof SK Agarwal under section 13.4 of the CSMMU Act to reinstate Singh and inform university's apex decision-making body - the executive council (EC) - about the decision.
Vice-chancellor, when contacted, refused to comment over the issue but said that he had directed the registrar to study government instructions and place the matter in the next EC meeting.
As per the section 13 of the CSMMU Act, government can conduct an inquiry into university's administrative and financial matters.
On the basis of the inquiry report, government can also direct university to take necessary action.
Vice-chancellor has to inform the EC about the government's directions. Within a stipulated time, the V-C also requires to submit an action taken report to the government.
If EC fails to comply with the government's order, the latter may issue directions again to university and such directions are binding on the university. However, university officers described the issue as a complex one.
Reasons: First - the Section 13 also allows university to nominate an EC member to be present during such an inquiry and heard as a university's representative, which was not done in this case.
Second - university cannot simply overrule the inquiry done by retired high court judge for obeying government's order. Third - they cannot cause displeasure to governor/chancellor who is the supreme authority in university matters.

End of Article

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA