AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
The challenge in this petition is made to the show cause notice dated 13.02.2025, issued by the respondent no.1, the Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Uttarakhand, by which, the petitioner was required to explain, as to why, action be not taken against him, for not maintaining the records, with regard to the Ph.D Entrance Examination of the years 2015, 2016 and examination of January, 2017 and June, 2017.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was only the Vice Chancellor at the relevant time. He was not custodian to the records pertaining to the examination. Therefore, there is no reason for issuance of notice to him by the respondent No.1. He would submit that earlier the respondent no.2, the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Vigilance, Government of India conducted an inquiry and has found that no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act”) with regard to the Ph.D Examination of the relevant years. Reference has been made to a report dated 01.12.2023, which is Annexure 13 of the respondent no.2, the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Vigilance, Government of Uttarakhand. The report dated 01.12.2023 of the respondent no.2, which is Annexure 13 records that the offence under the Act may not be initiated against the petitioner, who is the Vice Chancellor. But, the observation in that report is made that the documents pertaining to the examination were not maintained.
The petitioner has merely been served with the notice. He could reply it. If he needs some documents, he could seek those documents from the respondent no.1 and accordingly make its reply. Merely because a notice is given, it does not give a cause to the petitioner to approach the Court seeking quashing of the show cause notice, particularly in the background that the Vigilance inquiry has been conducted with regard to the corruption in the Ph.D Examination of the relevant years and in that Vigilance inquiry report, as stated, a finding is recorded that the documents pertaining to those Ph.D examination were not maintained properly.
In view of it, the Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
The reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice shall be considered independent to any observation that has been made by the Court in the present order.