A former SJA Prez had sent extensive documentation concerning the distance education scam to the then Chancellor/CJI, which subsequently led to critical discussions in the EC. The then Acting VC, Justice Talukdar and his allies had slowed down the inquiries directed by the EC.

Apparently the evidence collected/presented by the former SJA Prez was so strong that despite the best efforts of NKC and his allies, the EC had to unanimously agree the distance education courses were illegally conducted by NUJS and the inquiry needs to be done properly.

What really is the SJA doing? There was a time when dogged pursuit by SJA opened a can of worms involving financial chicanery of UGC funds running into crores and got the Cal HC to direct an inquiry by Justice (Retd) PN Sinha. Soon thereafter an unrelenting SJA despite change in leadership exposed other scams including distance education courses perpetrated by PIB and his Boys.

PIB got booted. Justice Talukdar and NKC killed off all the inquiries. Maybe the problem isn't the SJA but all of us who make up the GB. If the (s)elected few in the SJA prefer servility what about the silent majority or vocal minority?

It is very likely that on Effulgent and NFCG issues NKC/EC will only hector and desist from doing anything decisive because the inconvenient questions (below) remain unanswered by NKC with tacit approval from the powers that be in the EC -

1. What was SAK the then Registrar (Acting) doing? Why isn't he being inquired for dereliction/negligence? What deliberate omissions were pursued by AM, the director of SDME? It was a cabal of PIB acolytes, which the mislead both the AC and EC and distance educations students

2. What is the actual status of the EC-mandated inquiries against PIB? How can he and his acolytes e let off the hook just like that, esp the "PIB Boys" in the faculty?

3. What has been the real progress achieved by the recently designated senior advocate in recovering so-called unauthorised payments by the VC? More important;y why no review is being conducted concerning the instructions given by NKC to lawyers who represented university against iPleaders? Were the defeats in the HC and SC scripted when NKC had better relations with a certain teach?

4. What is the actual status of the EC-mandated inquiry into the illegality of distance education courses and affixing responsibility? Why isn't NKC making these inquiries available to the SJA/GB? What explains the silence?

Apart from this, what explains inaction of NKC on the Cal HC initiated Justice (Retd) PN Sinha Inquiry. Incidentally, it was directed by DD when he was in the Cal HC. Maybe he has grown wiser in the company of CC

The Calcutta High Court has cleared Prof. (Dr.) Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti, the Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, of sexual harassment allegations. The court found no credible evidence to support the claims and upheld the Local Complaint Committee’s (LCC) decision to dismiss the complaint, citing the time limitations outlined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. The complaint was filed on December 26, 2023 by a faculty member, who accused Prof. Chakrabarti of making inappropriate advances between 2019 and April 2023, allegedly linking professional benefits to personal interactions. The complaint was filed only after the enquiry was initiated by the Executive Council into her on December 21,2023. Under the POSH Act, complaints must be filed within three months of the last alleged incident, with a possible three-month extension in exceptional cases. The complainant, however, failed to justify the substantial delay in bringing forward the case.

The court highlighted that the sexual harassment complaint was filed much later than the statutory deadline. The delay, coupled with the absence of credible evidence, led the LCC to dismiss the case. Further, the complainant’s own communications with the university’s Chancellor did not mention any claims of sexual harassment, casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The complainant also failed to present convincing evidence to substantiate the claims. Furthermore, prior to the harassment allegations, the complainant had faced administrative scrutiny for professional lapses, including failure to complete a university project with NFCG and not submitting necessary financial documentation. Additionally, the complainant had undisclosed business ties, being a partner in Effulgent Educators LLP, which raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest when managing a university course. The court also pointed out that key decisions, like withholding promotions, were made by the university’s Executive Council—a panel of respected academics and jurists—not by Prof. Chakrabarti acting alone. This weakened the claim of the Complainant that the Vice-Chancellor had exerted undue influence over administrative matters.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqIaDhQxb1%2B6E%2BBOO8QdbgnuSjKc8Psozi%2FUgYgQA74Uo&caseno=FMA/873/2024&cCode=3&appFlag=&cino=WBCHCA0325622024&state_code=16