Former Kerala University (KU) officials accused of corruption and favouritism in the appointment of University Assistants (UA) Grade-II in 2005 could easily escape trial if the State government did not accord sanction to prosecute them under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Crime Branch has told the government.
The Home Department had recently given sanction to the Crime Branch to prosecute the accused, including a former vice chancellor, pro-vice chancellor, registrar and two senate members, on the charges of corruption, conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, nepotism and destruction of evidence in connection with conduct of a written test and interview for selection to the post.
Curiously, the order specified that “sanction was not required under Section 197 of the Cr.PC,” which applied to serving and former public servants, to prosecute the suspects.
Order contestedInvestigators said that ADGP, Crime Branch, S. Aananthakrishnan, in an urgent communiqué to the Home Department, has contested the order, pointing out that the suspects were likely to earn a discharge from the court on the ground that Crime Branch lacked the sanction to prosecute them under the relevant section of the law.
As many as 45,538 university graduates had taken the examination for 350 vacancies.
Around 175 of them gained appointment. Scores of candidates moved the court and the Lokayukta stating that the selection process had been manipulated to reject high scorers.
Those appointed were the privileged few favoured by those at the helm of the university. The Lokayukta, finding merit in the complaints, cancelled the appointments and ordered a criminal inquiry against the accused. The High Court tasked the Crime Branch to investigate the case. The agency is scheduled to submit its charge sheet at the anti-corruption court here.
Charge sheetIn its charge sheet, the agency said that one of the accused in the case had been convicted in 1998 for helping his neighbour gain employment in the Secretariat by manipulating the answer sheet, which he was contracted to evaluate while working as lecturer in a private college.
The High Court subsequently stayed his conviction on the merit of an appeal filed by him.
The other accused in the case included two locally important functionaries of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
