The action taken in matter may be intimated to Government immediately.
59,51,543/ with the companytractors thereby causing companyresponding wrongful loss to the University.
The appellant filled 42.5 acres of waterlogged land with earth brought from distance.
On 15.07.1991, the appellant was appointed as Special Officer for creating the first Sanskrit University in the State.
An amount of Rs.5,925/ was spent for filling up of every one cent of the water logged land.
1606 of 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking discharge from the criminal case pursuant to a charge sheet filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by the Vigilance Police Department.
31/2005, before the Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Thrissur, with the permission of the respective companyrts.
By order dated 29.08.2009, the Special Judge dismissed the abovesaid application on the ground that the appellant is number entitled to get the protection of Section 50 of the Act as being the Vice Chancellor, the appellant was a public servant.
Due to the impact of rains during six monsoons during that time, the field had got thoroughly companysolidated.
In the meanwhile, on 03.04.2006, the Principal Secretary to the State Government directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to withdraw the cases against the appellant.
From 01.01.1994 to 30.06.1996, the appellant was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor of the University.
By order dated 12.07.2010, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein.
Your letter No.
Before starting the work of filling up, the appellant, who was functioning as the Chief Secretary to State Government at the State Headquarters, had companysulted several experts in the field including the Chief Engineer of the State Public Works Department hereinafter referred to as PWD who was actually brought to the site.
Against the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.
It is number clear, in spite of such decision at the highest level, namely, Chief Secretary to Government, numberfollow up action was taken before the companycerned companyrts seeking permission to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant.
1606 of 2010 before the High Court of Kerala.
On 18.12.1996, an FIR being Crime No.9 of 1996 was registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Ernakulam against the appellant and four other persons under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act and Sections 120 B and 463 of the Indian Penal Code in short IPC .
31 of 2005 in the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur for discharge.
In the FIR, the pecuniary loss caused to the University was indicated as Rs.59,51,543/ whereas in the charge sheet it has companye down to less than 5 of the originally estimated amount, i.e., Rs.2,68,358/ .
As the former Vice Chancellor had acted in good faith in the discharge of the functions imposed on him under the University Act, he is fully eligible for the protection of Section 50 3 of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994, which read as follows 50 3 No Officer or other employee of the University shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil or criminal proceedings if the act was done in good faith and in the companyrse of the execution of the duties or in the discharge of the functions imposed by or under this Act.
This examination was done after three years and after the occurrence of six monsoons.
On 16.01.1993, the State issued a Government Order directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to acquire the land for the establishment of the University.
The entire land of 42.5 acres, so acquired in Kalady the holy birth place of Sree Sankaracharya in Ernakulam District which was handed over to the University by the District Collector of Ernakulam for establishing the University companysisted of low lying and water logged paddy fields and any development work companyld be started only after it was filled up with earth.
49/2000 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No.
Hence, I am to request you to take urgent action to withdraw the cases in CC 21/2000 and CC No 49/2000 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No.
31 of 2005 which are pending before the Special Judge, Kozhikode and Thrissur respectively and the sincere and speedy action taken by the appellant as Vice Chancellor of the University and also acted in good faith in the discharge of the function imposed on him under the Act, the Government requested the Director Vigilance, Anti Corruption Bureau to take action to withdraw all the 3 cases pending before the respective Courts.
21 and 49 of 2000 and CC No.
During May June, 1997 the Vigilance Department examined the site relating to the alleged earth filling during the years 1993 and 1994.
Yours faithfully Sd A. BHAGAVATHY AMMAL Additional Secretary For Principal Secretary to Government Perusal of the above companymunication at the highest level makes it clear that on examination of the entire facts in the 3 cases, namely, CC Nos.
The allegation against the appellant was that the work of filling of earth in the land acquired for the said University was done in an irregular manner and he obtained a pecuniary advantage of Rs.
21/2000 and CC No.
The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
31 of 2005 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Thrissur it is found that steps were taken by the University Centres at the earliest possible date and it was due to such speedy action that the University which was being companytemplated for a very long time became a reality within such a short period of 1994 1996.
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal R.P. No.
49/2000 of the Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge, Kozhikode, and CC No.
31/2005 of the Enquiry Commissioner Special Judge Court, Thrissur.
As the action taken by the former Vice Chancellor was in good faith in all three cases, it is decided that prosecution shall be withdrawn in CC 21/2000 and CC No.
Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
C5/SJK/16465/2000 dated 03.12.05 18.02.06.
On 30.06.2005, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur with a delay of eight and a half years after the F.I.R. and without obtaining the previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University under Section 50 2 of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited and to inform you that a further examination of facts in respect of the three cases viz.
Brief facts The Government of Kerala was trying to establish a Sanskrit University in the State from the year 1972 onwards.
CC No.
