1. Heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anuj Srivastava for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P.

2. The writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the first information report dated 02.02.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.63 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 7, 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

3. A complaint was made by one Diwakar Nath Tripathi regarding the appointments of Professors, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, illegally and contrary to rules in Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj.

4. Consequent to the complaint, on the directions issued by the Department of Agricultural Education and Research Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 24.10.2018 and also the letter dated 23.01.2019 of the Finance Department, an enquiry was conducted by the Director Local Fund Audit Department, U.P., Prayagraj. This inquiry revealed that during the period from 1984 -2017, 69 Professors, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors were appointed contrary to the established norms for appointments. In these appointments, the criteria for minimum qualification was not followed " or the posts were not advertised in two newspapers". In the advertisements made, the period of making the applications were not specified; interview call letters were not issued and after selections were made, the results were not published. Some appointments were made even without inviting applications; Posts for which, salary was being made available by the Government and which were required to be filled by direct appointments were filled by absorption. Therefore, the appointments were illegal and government funds had been misutilized. It is also alleged that forged documents were used for disbursing Government funded salaries to such illegally appointed persons.

5. The first information report also details the names of the persons responsible for such illegal acts, which includes the 7 petitioners in this writ petitioner. It has additionally been alleged that in a planned manner unqualified persons were accorded illegal benefits and bribes were accepted during the selection process, leading to mis-utilization of Government funds, which is a criminal act.

6. It is submitted by Shri Gopal S. Chaturvedi that on 18.08.2017, a complaint was made by Diwakar Nath Tripathi to the Chief Treasury Officer, District Magistrate, which complaint was forwarded to the Additional Commissioner (I), Allahabad Division, Allahabad, who in turn issued a letter to the Finance Controller of the University calling for a reply, which was duly furnished.

7. In the meantime, on the basis of complaints dated 18.08.2017 and 15.09.2017, again made by Diwakar Nath Tripathi, the Special Secretary Department of Agriculture Education and Research, Government of Uttar Pradesh directed the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad to inquire into the complaints. The petitioners were also issued a letter by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, calling upon the petitioner no.1 to visit the office of the Superintendent of Police (Crime). On 19.09.2018, the Superintendent of Police (Crime), Allahabad submitted an inquiry report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad.

8. On the basis of the letters dated 24.10.2018 and 21.01.2019, a special audit was ordered in which, the petitioners cooperated fully.

9. Vide letters dated 28.05.2019 and 06.09.2019 issued by the Joint Secretary, Home, Police Departmnet-3, Government of Uttar Pradesh, a special investigation team was directed to conduct an enquiry.

10. On 09.04.2021, The SDM Karchana submitted a report with no adverse finding against the University, as did the Joint Director, Higher Education, vide report dated 31.05.2021 as also the Joint Director Agriculture, Prayagraj Zone, Prayagraj, vide report dated 07.07.2021. These reports were forwarded by the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj to the Additional Chief Secretary Government of U.P.

11. On the strength of the above facts, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that once an investigation was conducted by the State Government, in view of Section 3 of the Police Act, a second investigation was not permissible, especially when the complainant in both the investigations was the same,namely, Diwakar Nath Tripathi and the issues involved were identical.

12. It is also contended that the report of the SIT dated 26.04.2020 was an extremely detailed one.

13. It is additionally contended that Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj is a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act. The first information report is highly belated and the allegations therein are altogether vague. The State Government committed patent illegality in calling for a special audit despite the existence of a report of the SIT, which was neither called nor perused to the State Government prior to issuing directions for a special audit.

14. Additionally, the writ petition contains elaborate averments as to why Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC are not attracted and why no offence under these sections is actually made out from the allegations in the first information report.

15. It would be relevant to note that it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj is an institution on the Governments' Grand in Aid List.

16. Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has invited the attention of the Court on page 103 of the paper book to submit that the scope of the SIT constituted was entirely different. It was dealing with a complaint made by Diwakar Nath Tripathi about the illegal use of the land of the institution, contrary to certain Gazette Notifications of 1914- 1911. It is, therefore, his contention that the SIT was not dealing with the issue of irregularity of the appointments of Professors, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors. Therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioners lacks substance.

17. It is also his contention that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of the findings returned in the special audit report, which report runs into almost 500 pages.

18. It is also vehemently submitted that during the special audit, serious financial irregularities have been detected, which find mention in the report. The first information report therefore, discloses a cognizable offence.

19. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the Special Audit Report which has been provided by Shri Manish Goel.

20. We have carefully perused the report of the SDM, Karchana filed as Annexure 11 to this writ petition and we find that it does not, in any manner, deal with the issue of appointments in Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj or their illegality or otherwise.

21. In so far as the submission that the report of the SIT is in favour of the petitioners is concerned, the said report is not on record. In paragraph 33 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the report has not been made available to the petitioner. In absence of this report, the submission that this report is not adverse to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, petitioners have not seen this report.

22. Since, the issue raised by the impugned first information report is basically one of financial irregularities, there appears no illegality, if it is based on the Special Audit Report. A team of auditors are best equipped to examine and to report financial irregularities. The police authorities may not necessarily be well equipped to deal with the audit of accounts for detecting financial irregularities. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the Special Audit as the consequential FIR was hit by provisions of Section 3 of the Police Act does not find favour with the Court.

23. Along with the writ petition is annexed a letter of the State Government dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), which states that the employees, officers and teachers working of Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj on posts sanctioned by the State Government are not government employees. On its basis, it is sought to be contended that since the 69 appointees were not government employees, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked against the petitioners.

24. The Sam Higginbottom University and Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj is an educational institution and is therefore, performing a public duty of imparting education in which the community at large has an interest.

25. Section 2 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act defines a public servant.

(b) "public duty" means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. Explanation.—In this clause "State" includes a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

26. Sub-section xii of Section 2 is also relevant and reads as follows.

(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority.

27. The petitioners therefore, undoubtedly fall within the scope of Section 2(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

28. We are not inclined to agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the institution is on the Governments-Grant-in-Aid list and is receiving financial aid. Therefore, if appointments have been made contrary to the rules or if unqualified persons have been appointed or the procedure for direct recruitment has been followed in its breach, it is improper utilization and or misuse of government funds and to this extent, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act will definitely be attracted.

29. Accordingly and even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that no offence under the Sections of IPC invoked by the first information report are attracted to the facts of the case, the allegations definitely make out a case under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and these allegation do constitute a cognizable offence.

30. The writ Court while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report is not required to examine or rule on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations in the first information report. It is only required to consider as to whether the allegations, after accepting every single word to be true, constitute a cognizable offence or not. Only, if on such consideration, no cognizable offence is made out, the first information report can be quashed.

31. We are constrained to hold that it cannot be said that the allegations in the first information report, for the reasons given herein-above, do not constitute a cognizable offence. The first information report therefore, cannot be quashed.

32. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.