VC resignation demanded

In view of this, the Forum, which comprises teachers, students and social organizations, has also demanded Prof Srivastava to step down as the VC of the central university.

It also alleged that the office of Vice-Chancellor did not have any officiating person on January 4 and 11.

“Prof Srivastava had abdicated his responsibility of running the office by remaining absent and by not even appointing an in-charge and thereby committing gross dereliction of duty…

By doing so, he lost his right to continue in the office of Vice-Chancellor,” MeCAW chairman Roypar Synrem said in a statement issued on Thursday.

He said “Especially on 4th and 11th January, absence of both Vice-Chancellor and Pro-VC from Shillong without giving charge to anyone simply shows that the office of Vice-Chancellor is reduced to null and void.”

Demanding Prof Srivastava to resign as VC, Synrem alleged that the incumbent VC has violated all rules mentioned in vigilance manual, 2017 related to appointment of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), by appointing his deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor Henry Lamin as the CVO of the University.

He said the rules explicitly debar anyone from becoming CVO who has been involved in tendering process and such other matters related in which there is scope of corruption to be CVO so that once in the office of CVO, he or she won’t have to investigate one’s own dealings related to tender matters.

For understanding of everyone, Office Memorandum issued by the Vigilance Section of the Higher Education belonging to the erstwhile Ministry of Human Resources’ Development (MHRD) dated 31.01.2020 unedr the subject, “Appointment of part-time Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in all University/Institutes/Organizations under administrative control of MHRD”clearly stated that the procedure of appointment of CVO must be like this: “nominations of three officers of sufficient seniority not connected with the work of tendering, procurement and recruitment are sent to MHRD” to get approval from Central Vigilance Commission.

He said only after obtaining approval on such names who are not associated with above three kinds of work, one of them may be appointed by the concerned University as CVO.

“In case of NEHU and its VC Prof Srivastava who violates all rules at will and shows contempt to law, the said VC appointed his Pro-VC (in-charge) Prof Henry Lamin, connected with tendering, recommending and approval of work orders and many other such financial dealings, which is explicitly debarred by the Ministry,” MeCAW chairman said.

“As it is learnt from important sources, when investigating agencies are looking into cases of corruption in University’s tendering process in which Prof Lamin is involved in some stages, will remain privy to correspondences and other enquiries on matters that directly involve him is a matter of great concern.

By violating what is debarred in the above cited Memorandum of Government of India as well as in Vigilance Manual of 2017, especially in its rule 2.9.1, the apprehension justifiably arises that  the NEHU Vice-Chancellor Prof Srivastava is paving the way for manipulation and suppression of facts and evidences in case in matters of enquiry pertaining to corruption in tendering process,” he further alleged.

Synrem also pointed out that rule 2.9.1 of the Vigilance Manual, 2017 of the Govt Of India with the sub-title, “Association of CVO with other organizational matters” clearly stated,

“…CVO and the Vigilance functionaries  should not be a party to decision-making processes, which are likely to have vigilance sensitivity”, as this may result in conflict of Interest.”

He said “Indeed there arises a conflict of interest in a huge way in the case of Prof Henry Lamin as the CVO of the University. Not only as Chairman of the sub-committee of tender evaluation, Prof Henry Lamin recommended bids, but he also approved these bids in too many cases.

The very fact of his recommending bids and approving them is a gross violation of Vigilance manual and the General Financial Rules (GFR), which can be a subject matter of Vigilance Enquiry in near future. Apart from this, he himself being a candidate for VC selection, will have to write as the CVO, vigilance clearance for other candidate(s), who are included in the short list for VC in NEHU.”

According to Synrem, this opens up the possibility of conflict of interest and inaugurates a grave manipulation of rules that destroy all semblance of propriety in the functioning of NEHU’s vigilance cell.

He added, this proves beyond doubt how Prof Srivastava is involved in dereliction of all fundamental governing principles and rules of the University by utilizing cronies like Prof Henry Lamin and by violating every shade of University’s rule.

“This is how Prof Srivastava appointed cronies by sheer misuse and abuse of his office for which the once premier university now needs an urgent healing touch and a course correction,” he said adding not only Prof Srivastava is a big disaster for NEHU, but he also is a threat to academic, administrative and financial propriety.

By Our Reporter