BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court directed the Comptroller and Auditor General (Karnataka) to carry out a financial audit of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad, from 2018 to 2025. If any irregularities or financial mismanagement are found during the audit, action should be taken in accordance with the law, the high court added.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by Shivaputra M Honnalli, who has been the in-charge Comptroller of UAS since June 2, 2018, questioning the posting of Pooja Doddamani in his place.
The court also directed the vice- chancellor (VC) to prepare a panel of not less than three persons, being officers of the cadre of Joint Comptroller of State Accounts Department or an officer of the Rank of Deputy Accountant General of Audit and Accounts Department and place the same before the Board of Management. If the Board of Management accept any of the candidates in the panel, the VC could appoint the approved candidate as the Comptroller. Until then, Pooja Doddamani should discharge her duties as the in-charge Comptroller, strictly in accordance with law, the court said.
Holding that Pooja also does not satisfy the required qualification, the court said that neither the appointment of the petitioner, Shivaputra, nor Pooja was proper and correct as per the provisions of the UAS Act, 2009.
The court noted that Section 30 of the Act indicates that the officers of the varsity should be appointed by the VC. However, on repeated enquiry, no documents have been placed to justify that the petitioner is qualified.
He does not belong to the cadre of Joint Comptroller of the State Accounts Department or an officer of the rank of Deputy Accountant General of the Audit and Accounts Department. Without any approval of the Board of Management, the VC appointed the petitioner as an in-charge Comptroller. Thus, the in-charge arrangement could only extend for six months and not longer, the court observed.
The court also stated that, admittedly, in the present matter, the petitioner has been discharging the in-charge arrangements from 2018 and has been challenging any other appointment made by the state to his place, apparently with the active support of the VC.
Also, the appointment of the Comptroller is restricted to four years. It is rather shocking that the petitioner, who was appointed as an in-charge Comptroller, could not have been in charge for more than six months at the most. Even if a Comptroller is appointed by following a procedure, he or she should not be allowed more than four years. However, the petitioner has been discharged as a Comptroller from 2018 till now for nearly seven years. This aspect does not inspire confidence and, in fact, is suspicious. Therefore, there is required to be an audit, the court said.
