IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. WJC No.636 of 2009
Faiyaz Ahmad, s/o Kamruzama, Secretary, Millat
Teachers Training College, Madhubani
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Director
General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6,
Circular Road, Patna- 800001
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. Sri Mritunjay Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Deputy
Superintendent of Police- cum- Inquiry Officer,
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, 6, Circular Road, Patna-
800001
.... RESPONDENTS
---------
For the Petitioner : M/s B. P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate &
Jagannath Singh, Advocate
For the State : M/s Lalit Kishore, Sr Advocate &
Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi,
AC to AAG I
For Vigilance : Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP (Vigilance)
———
19 13 .4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
2. Petitioner is Secretary of Millat Teachers
Training College, Madhubani which is claimed to be a
minority unaided institution established in the year 1990.
It claims to have recognition of the State Government
-2-
since the academic session 1990-92. It is understood that
the petitioner claims to have affiliation of its institution
with Lalit Narayan Mithila University (hereinafter
referred to as „the University‟) till 1995-96 and thereafter
it got recognition of the National Council for Teacher
Education, Eastern Regional Committee since the
session 1996-97 in the light of provisions of NCTE Act,
1993 which came into force from 1.7.1995.
3. Petitioner claims that since it is unaided
minority institution imparting training to teachers to
enable them to appear in the examination for B. Ed.
degree, it does not perform any “public duty” and does
not come within the definition of “public servant” as
defined under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „the PC Act‟). This
is the basis for challenging a letter bearing no.7096 dated
6.7.2009 contained in Annexure- 4 series whereby
respondent no.3, Sr. Deputy Superintendent of Police-
cum- Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Investigation Bureau has
requested the petitioner to make available information
and documents mentioned in letter no.6555 dated
-3-
3.6.2009 (Annexure-1) for holding inquiry pursuant to
letter no.866 dated 27.5.2006 whereby respondent no.2,
the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Bihar notified the
Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna to hold inquiry in
respect of privately managed B. Ed. training colleges in
reply to and context of letter no.140 of respondent no.2
dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure- A).
4. Earlier this writ petition was considered by a
learned single Judge on 6.10.2010. In the order passed
on that date the learned single Judge noted all the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner which
are to the effect that petitioner does not perform any
“public duty” as defined under Section 2 (b) of the PC
Act nor does it fall under the definition of “public
servant” defined under Section 2(c) of that Act and,
therefore, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau will have
no jurisdiction to take up inquiry or investigation
involving the petitioner‟s institution. The other
submission is that the letter or notice under challenge can
-4-
be issued only under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „CrPC‟) and such
power cannot be exercised till a regular case is instituted
by the police. The learned single Judge found the issues
raised to be of significance and hence, referred the matter
to Division Bench for consideration.
5. The same issues of law were raised before
us by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
He also raised a plea that now when the NCTE has found
the petitioner‟s institution to be proper and has granted
recognition, there can be no justification for subjecting it
to an inquiry by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
6. In the context of issues involved, it is
relevant to refer to the material facts constituting the
background for the inquiry in question as they appear in
the letter of the Additional Director General of Police,
Vigilance Investigation Bureau dated 24.3.2006
contained in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit of
respondent no.2. That letter is addressed to the Secretary
Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar
(subsequently redesignated as Department of Human
-5-
Resources Development Department). The subject is
inquiry in respect of colleges in the private sector
associated with B. Ed. / Dental and other vocational
courses. The letter discloses that a team of officials
constituted by the Chancellor detected irregularities in
respect of grant of affiliation and publication of results
for B. Ed. and other courses by the University. The
details of the irregularities and relevant papers were
enclosed with letter dated 12.4.1999 issued by the
Secretariat of Hon‟ble Chancellor with a direction to the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau to enquire into the
matter. Similar request for inquiry were received from
the Secretariat of Hon‟ble Chancellor with respect to
four Dental colleges under the same University and
Teachers training colleges under B. N. Mandal
University as well as Magadh University.
7. The said letter (Annexure- A) further
discloses that Vigilance Investigation Bureau constituted
a team of officers and selected some colleges for inquiry
as sample cases. The result of the inquiry revealed
cognizable offences leading to registration of regular
-6-
cases against seven Teachers training colleges and two
Dental colleges under LN Mithila University and one
Teachers training college under Magadh University. The
letter further discloses that modus operandi adopted by
all the institutions revealed almost same type of
irregularities and wrong methods. In respect of some of
the remaining institutions/ colleges, inquiry was initiated
but it could not reach any final conclusion because the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau got involved in other
very important cases relating to BPSC scam, Flood
Relief scam, IGIMS scam etc. The Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, vide Annexure- A requested the
Human Resources Development Department to
constitute team of its own officers for holding inquiry in
respect of other colleges mentioned in the reports
received from the Secretariat of the Hon‟ble Governor.
It was suggested that if in such inquiry cognizable
offences were detected then criminal cases may be
instituted either with the local police or with the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
8. In the context of aforesaid letter of the
-7-
Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, a reply was sent by the
Commissioner- cum- Secretary of the Human Resources
Development Department through letter no.866 dated
27.5.2006 with a direction that inquiry in respect of
remaining B. Ed. training colleges should also be
conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. As
mentioned in the counter affidavit of respondent no.2,
the Vigilance Investigation Bureau vide its letter no.365
dated 1.6.2006 accepted to complete the inquiry in
respect of rest 11 colleges and that has led to inquiry
against petitioner‟s institution and issuance of the
impugned letter/ notice.
9. On behalf of the respondents strong reliance
was placed upon the facts emerging from Annexures A
and B to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 for
advancing the submission that the illegalities or
irregularities requiring inquiry relate to earlier period
when the concerned University had granted affiliations
and published results of examination of B. Ed. courses
and in relation to such acts, a team of high officials
-8-
constituted by the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar
had found irregularities which led the Chancellor to issue
directions for inquiry by the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau. On behalf of the respondents reliance was
placed upon Section 9 (2) of the Bihar State Universities
Act, 1976 which reads as follows :
” 9.(2) The Chancellor shall have the powers to
inspect the university, its buildings, laboratories,
workshops and equipment, any College or
hostel, the teaching or examinations conducted,
or any act done by the university, and to get such
inspection done by such person or persons who
may be directed by him and to inquire or to
cause an inquiry made, in like manner, in respect
of any matter connected with the University and
it shall be the duty of the officers of the
concerned University and College to render
necessary assistance in such inspection :
Provided that the Chancellor shall, in
every case, inform the Vice Chancellor of his
intention to inspect or inquire or to get the
inspection or inquiry conducted and the
University shall be entitled to representation
therein.
10. In order to avoid the effect of aforesaid
statutory provision under which the Chancellor has
powers to get inquiry made in respect of any matter
connected with the University and corresponding duty of
the officers of the University and the College to render
necessary assistance, learned counsel for the petitioner
-9-
attempted to make a distinction between “affiliated
college” and “constituent college” which are separately
defined under Section 2(c) and 2 (i) of the Bihar State
Universities Act. That distinction is found to be of no
substance because Section 9 (2) mentions “any College”
without making any distinction between affiliated
college and constituent college. Hence, the inquiry in
the instant case by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau is
clearly permitted under the statutory provisions noticed
above. This view is supported by a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Salahuddin
Sarwar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 64. In that
case also the petitioner represented a private unaided
college and identical issues relating to authority of the
Chancellor to direct such inquiry and the power of the
Vigilance Department to hold the inquiry was under
challenge. The Division Bench upheld the authority of
the Chancellor as well as power of the Vigilance
Department and also the views of the learned single
Judge that genuineness and otherwise of the claims of
the petitioner college was not required to be gone into at
– 10 –
a stage where the Vigilance Department was only
conducting an inquiry and no case had been instituted.
The Division Bench also placed reliance upon judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of R. P. Kapur and
others v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and others, AIR
1961 SC 1117, to highlight that Section 154 of the CrPC
does not lay down that information of a cognizable
offence can only be given to officer incharge of the
police station. It is not in dispute that Vigilance
Investigation Bureau is a police station whose
jurisdiction extends over the whole State. The aforesaid
Division Bench judgment is a complete answer to the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The
Vigilance Department of the State Government cannot
be faulted for respecting the statutory powers of the
Chancellor and the inquiry being conducted by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau has the sanctity of law and as an
affiliated college or a college for which examination was
conducted by the University, the petitioner‟s institution
is required to render all assistance in such inquiry.
11. A similar view was taken by another
– 11 –
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satish
Kumar v. V.C., Bhupendra Nr. Mandal University,
2007 (2) PLJR 682. In paragraph 11 of that judgment
reference was made to Section 9 (2) of the Bihar State
Universities Act and after quoting the same it was held
as follows :
” …… In view of the express provision in
the Act, it is futile to suggest that the
Chancellor had no power to ask the
Vigilance Department to enquire into the
matter of grant of affiliation/ recognition to
the College. ……..”
12. Learned counsel for the respondents
advanced a further submission that only because the
petitioner is an unaided educational institution it cannot
be said that it is not performing a public duty. In support
of this proposition reliance was placed upon a judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v.
State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645. That case related also
to running of private unaided educational institutions and
conducting professional courses and in paragraph 79 it
was held that these educational institutions discharge
public duty irrespective of the fact whether they are
receiving aid or not.
– 12 –
13. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1, for
supporting a submission that after coming into force of
the NCTE Act, 1993, the control over institutions
recognized by the NCTE vests only in the latter and the
State Government has no power to take any decision in
respect of an institution recognized by the NCTE. This
proposition has no relevance in the present case because
the inquiry ordered by the Chancellor and the State
Government relate to an earlier period when the
concerned University had allegedly committed
irregularities / illegalities in granting affiliation to and/or
conducting examination for the concerned institutions.
14. The issue relating to applicability of
provisions of the PC Act to the petitioner‟s institution is
found to be entirely misconceived. The inquiry is
primarily against the irregular or illegal acts of the
University. The colleges or the institutions that might
have or are suspected to have abetted omission of
– 13 –
offences by officials of the University will definitely be
covered by the provisions of the PC Act even if such
colleges are themselves not covered by the definition of
“public servant” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
15. As a result of aforesaid discussions, it is
found that the inquiry being conducted by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau does not contravene any provision
of the PC Act or CrPC and is mandated by Section 9 (2)
of the Bihar State Universities Act. It is further found
that subsequent recognition by the NCTE is of no
consequence so far as the present inquiry is concerned
because the same relates to an earlier period. It is made
clear that we have not gone into the merits of petitioner‟s
claim of innocence because it is not an appropriate stage
for embarking upon such an inquiry by this Court. It
may be relevant to mention here that a similar objection
with regard to inquiry by the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau was raised in an earlier writ petition filed by
private Teachers training college association bearing
CWJC No.7159 of 2006 and the said writ petition was
dismissed by this Court on 21.9.2006 as per averment in
– 14 –
paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent
no.1 which has not been disputed.
16. In the final analysis, we find no merit in
this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
I agree
(Gopal Prasad, J.)
AFR
sk