Madras HC gives DVAC two months to decide complaint over alleged ₹16.35-crore college fund irregularities

The petitioner, a former Administrative Office Assistant at Yadava College, complained to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on 24 November 2025 about alleged financial irregularities, including the premature closure of eight fixed deposits said to total ₹16,35,45,368, and alleged corruption in staff appointments.

DVAC informed him that it had forwarded the complaint to the Director of Collegiate Education, but initially did not conduct its own factual verification.

After the High Court’s intervention, the third respondent submitted a source report on 2 September 2026, and DVAC examined the petitioner and other witnesses. DVAC registered a preliminary enquiry, PE 107/2026/EDN/MU, on 16 September 2026.

The petitioner sought a direction to complete the enquiry; the State disputed his standing, relying on his dismissal from service and the third respondent’s report that the complaint was false.

Whether the petitioner, despite being a former employee of the institution, could seek action on his complaint alleging corruption in the administration of the institution.

Whether DVAC was required to conduct and conclude a preliminary enquiry into the complaint in accordance with the applicable procedure, rather than merely forwarding it to the third respondent.

The Court relied on Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and G.O.(Ms.) No. 173, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 19 December 2018, which prescribe preliminary factual verification of corruption complaints and require the competent authority’s decision on permission for enquiry or investigation within three months, extendable by one month for recorded reasons.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in G. Venkateshan v. Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi & Ors., W.P.(MD) No. 5339 of 2026, dated 25 February 2026, for the principle that factual verification cannot consist solely of referring the complaint to the employer; the investigating agency must also gather material from other sources.

The State referred to Vigilance Manual Rule 27 as requiring disposal of the preliminary enquiry within two months.

The Court held that DVAC’s initial act of forwarding the complaint to the third respondent, without its own factual verification, did not satisfy the procedure described in G.O.(Ms.) No. 173 and the cited Division Bench decision.

The third respondent’s delayed report and DVAC’s eventual registration of the preliminary enquiry only on 16 September 2026 indicated prima facie delay in handling the complaint.

The Court rejected the objection that the petitioner lacked standing because he had been dismissed, observing that he remained a member of the public entitled to raise allegations of corruption concerning a public authority or government-aided institution.

As the enquiry had since been registered and witnesses examined, the Court directed DVAC to complete the preliminary enquiry and decide how to proceed within the applicable two-month period.

They were also directed to inform the petitioner of the action taken and the reasons for their decision; the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any further grievance in accordance with law.