Ashok Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner himself to be the Manager of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, under the name and style of Greenway Educational Society, indulged in running and managing the affairs of educational institutions in accordance with its by-laws as framed under the Societies Registration Act.

The petitioner claims that its rather the society as such, which is indulged in imparting higher education to the students and as a consequence to the said indulgment in the dispensation of the object of the Society of running the educational institution the petitioner, who admittedly is holding the office being the Manager of the Institution run by the authorities of the Society, who is shown to be indulged in misutilization rather usurpation of the financial assistance, which has been extended by the State for the benefit of the SC/ST Scholars studying in the respective private institutions, under the State sponsored Social Welfare Scheme, where the financial benefit was to be extended to the students belonging to the oppressed class, who were admitted by the institution and were taking their education in it, who were supposed to be actual beneficiary of financial assistance given by the State under the Scheme.

The State witnessed and was informed too that invariably in most of such private institutions, who were the beneficiaries of the financial assistance under the schemes enforced by the State, which included the petitioner's institution in question too, were availing the financial benefit given by the State, which was in turn was to be extended to the actual beneficiaries, i.e. students themselves prior to the issue in question. The Government Order dated 14.11.2014 was issued by the State, wherein, for the first time the online extension of benefit of the scholarship was extended and made effective w.e.f. Academic Year 2015-16 from when the scholarship, which was to be extended to the students was to be remitted directly into the accounts of the students themselves. On receipt of complaint of irregularities in disbursement of scholarship to the SC/ST students, the State constituted an SIT to investigate into the matter and to submit its report with regards to the set of allegation of misutiliztion of scheme, money and disbursement, which has figured to be rampantly prevailing in the State. Consequent thereto, the report was submitted on 17.04.2018 by way of a Government Order No. 1370/XX-3-2018-07/(109)2019, wherein, various institutions have been found to be included in the list of institutions, who were prima-facie found to be engaged in usurping the public money and, particularly, the money whose beneficiary otherwise were the students who were actually enrolled and were getting their education in the respective private institutions.

As per the SIT report, it was found that the petitioner's institution too was prima-facie found to be indulged in the said offence and was accused of misusing the scholarship for the Financial year 2012-13 to 2014-15. An FIR, which was registered as against the present petitioner, who is the Manager of the said Greenway Institute of Management Studies, Roorkee, District Haridwar, the said FIR No. 0518 dated 18.04.2019 was registered against the petitioner for commission of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

In the said FIR, the allegation as was mentioned was with regards to the usurpation of scholarship by the petitioner's institution, for the academic year 2012-13 it was for about 97 schedule caste students were shown to be enrolled to whom the benefit of scholarship extended was to the tune of Rs. 4,06,100/-, which was deposited into the accounts of the Institution; for the academic year 2013-14 about 278 schedule caste students were shown to be enrolled to whom the financial benefit which was extended was shown to be Rs. 99,80,400/-, which was deposited into the accounts of the petitioner's institution; similarly, for the academic year 2014-15 about 83 schedule students were shown to be enrolled to whom Rs. 26,11,900/- was shown to have been disbursed and deposited into the accounts of the institution; yet again for online scholarship for the students for the academic year 2014-15 it was for about 164 students were shown to be studying, who were the beneficiary of the scheme to whom Rs. 25,21,900/- was shown to be extended with the benefit of scheme and amount was deposited in their accounts. Thus, total amount disbursed by the State for academic years from 2012-13 to 2014-15 was shown to be of Rs. 1,91,20,300/-, which was deposited into the accounts of the institution.

Consequently, in the FIR, it has been remarked as aforesaid though it is yet a subject matter of investigation and trial, that for the aforesaid academic years, i.e. from 2012-13 to 2014-15 the petitioner's institution of which he is the Manager is shown to have usurped about Rs. 1,91,20,300/- of public money under a welfare scheme, which otherwise ought to have been extended to the students of the oppressed class, who are studying in the institution and who were the actual beneficiary.

It has further shown that there was doubt with regards to the actual extension of the benefit of scholarship to the students, who were the actual beneficiaries for the same, it was doubted for the reason being that the accounts, which was opened in relation to the students, who were the beneficiary of the scheme because:

(a) invariably all the accounts of the students, which were opened, were opened in one Bank,

(b) all the accounts were showing one mobile number against them,

(c) that numbers of accounts were being managed and controlled by different persons, who had connivance with the management of the Society, who were other than the students in whose name account was opened.

(d) total number of accounts opened in bank in relation to the students were more than the actual enrolled students, who had finally passed their academic year.

(e) on comparing the total number of students enrolled in the institution and the final result was showing much variance in statistics, for example, (i) academic year 2012-13- as against 26 students of B.B.A. of the SC category only 20 students were found to be enrolled, and total pass-out at the end of semester was only 6 students. Similar was the situations for other discipline, for example, B.C.A., B.Sc, C.A.; same was the disproportionate ratio for other academic years.

All these facts itself shows that there was some foul play, which was going on in the institution with regards to regulating the financial assistance given by the State in a manner that the institution may be benefited by the said financial assistance granted. Ultimately the FIR had also observe that if the number of students, which has been shown to be the beneficiary of the scheme, if they actually were getting the education in the institution then there is no reason as to why the final result of the institution was showing much lesser number of students strength actually passing out, who have actually succeeded in the particular academic year,

(f) that in itself prima-facie showed that there was a fictitious name of the students, which was generated by the institution for availing the financial benefits from the State under a Welfare Scheme.

The petitioner has come up with the case that the set of allegations leveled in the FIR may not be construed as to be true at the present instance, firstly, for the reason being that in accordance with the schedule of students, which he has provided therein in the writ petition, he has submitted that total number of students, which has been shown in a particular academic year corresponds with the actual strength of the students studying in the institution of the petitioner, who were the beneficiary of scholarship. Secondly, he submits that the set of allegations pertaining to the academic year 2014-15 cannot be said to be attributed to the petitioner for the reasons being in pursuance to the Government Order No. 2077-XVII-4/20 dated 14.11.2014, the Government has enforced an online disbursement of scholarship scheme and, hence, no allegation as such against the petitioner's institution for the said academic year could be harnessed.

This Court is unable to accept the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason being that the benefit of online disbursement of the scholarship to the students directly was made enforceable w.e.f. 2015-16 and as per the Government Order dated 14.11.2015, which is the academic year, which does not include to be in the set of allegations leveled in the FIR with regards to the particular academic years, regarding misutilization of scholarship money.

Prima-facie the theory of number of students studying with the petitioner, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is yet again not accepted for the reason being that the SIT report has disclosed that lesser number of students, who have actually qualified from the institutions of the petitioner for each of the respective academic year was much less than actual students shown to be enrolled for whom the benefit was denied. Even the strength of the students, which has been considered in the FIR, it rather shows to be much lesser number of students as compared to that for whom the benefit was derived by the petitioner. Apart from that, whatever factual aspect, which the petitioner may have in defense, or as attempted to be argued before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that these issues requiring application of evidence cannot be made as a subject matter of scrutiny in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has to be otherwise made as a subject matter of trial in order to book the actual culprit, who are misutilizing the public money or misutilizing the scholarship, which was otherwise to be extended to the students who are the actual beneficiary belonging to oppressed class of society.

In view of the aforesaid, I decline to exercise my extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

In case if the petitioner surrenders and moves the bail application with two weeks from today, the same would be considered by the Magistrate concerned expeditiously.

Any finding, which is based upon the allegations leveled in the FIR or the point, which has been argued by the petitioner and recorded in this judgment, that would not create any impediment in an independent trial of the petitioner.