Corruption Allegations at Bharathiar University: A Closer Look at the DVAC Case and Procurement Irregularities
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption’s (DVAC) recent move against high-ranking officials at Bharathiar University has sent ripples through the academic and governmental corridors of Tamil Nadu. Detailed allegations of corruption and procedural lapses, notably in the procurement of desktop computers, have resulted in the registration of criminal cases that involve not only former Vice-Chancellor A. Ganapathy and former finance officer P. Velusamy but extend to a network of university officials and private vendors. The substance and implications of this case merit both detailed exploration and critical analysis, particularly as they reflect persistent vulnerabilities in public procurement processes—a topic of heightened interest for those invested in governance, transparency, and educational integrity.
At the heart of the case lies the assertion that the procurement committee—including the principal accused, finance officer P. Velusamy, and then-Vice-Chancellor A. Ganapathy—bypassed mandatory procurement norms. Instead of sourcing computers from approved entities such as government-controlled institutions or the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), the committee authorized purchases from private vendors at dramatically inflated rates.
The Deviations:
Besides A. Ganapathy and P. Velusamy, at least 15 other individuals, including university officials and private vendors, are named in the case. The broad sweep of accused indicates that procurement fraud is often a group endeavor, relying on a tacit chain of approval or willful ignorance across departments.
This pattern is not unique to Bharathiar University but reflects a challenge faced by public institutions globally: how to design and enforce accountability mechanisms robust enough to prevent group transgressions.
In this case, the willingness to engage with private vendors despite clear procurement mandates suggests not only a pursuit of personal or institutional gain but perhaps an over-familiarity with certain vendors, a lack of fear of repercussions, or a broader institutional culture of tolerance toward procedural violations.
Efforts to address such systemic issues therefore require more than just reactive legal action—they demand a cultural shift, ongoing vigilance, and incentives for compliance at all levels of administration.
Regulatory Redress
First, prioritizing a fast and impartial legal process is critical. Justice delayed, especially in public corruption cases, is justice denied to the affected institution and its stakeholders.
Policy Overhaul
Second, the university should use this opportunity to overhaul its procurement policies, bringing them in line not only with government guidelines but with global best practices. Technology-enabled procurement, real-time public disclosure of bids, and third-party auditing can ensure greater accountability.
Public Apology and Restitution
Finally, institutions must never underestimate the power of acknowledging wrongdoing. Public apologies, coupled with efforts to recover lost funds, can help to restore confidence among students, parents, and the broader public.
If approached with transparency and a genuine commitment to reform, such scandals can become inflection points that spur necessary change: an opportunity to repair, to learn, and to evolve. For Bharathiar University, and for public institutions everywhere, the challenge now is to transform public outrage and legal scrutiny into a renewed culture of integrity, rigorous oversight, and enduring accountability.
Source: www.lokmattimes.com TN Vigilance files case against former Bharathiyar University VC and others - www.lokmattimes.com
Unveiling the Case: How a Desktop Computer Deal Became a Scandal
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption’s (DVAC) recent move against high-ranking officials at Bharathiar University has sent ripples through the academic and governmental corridors of Tamil Nadu. Detailed allegations of corruption and procedural lapses, notably in the procurement of desktop computers, have resulted in the registration of criminal cases that involve not only former Vice-Chancellor A. Ganapathy and former finance officer P. Velusamy but extend to a network of university officials and private vendors. The substance and implications of this case merit both detailed exploration and critical analysis, particularly as they reflect persistent vulnerabilities in public procurement processes—a topic of heightened interest for those invested in governance, transparency, and educational integrity.The DVAC Charges: Laws, Accused and the Anatomy of the Alleged Offenses
The crux of the DVAC case centers on the alleged wrongful procurement of 61 desktop computers during 2016–17. According to investigative reports, this action resulted in a financial loss of Rs 8,01,581 to Bharathiar University. The charges span sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside key provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These laws are specifically designed to safeguard public resources and ensure ethical conduct by government officials. The gravity of invoking such statutes, particularly within a prominent educational institution, is notable—it signals not merely administrative oversight but systemic issues of possible collusion and malfeasance.At the heart of the case lies the assertion that the procurement committee—including the principal accused, finance officer P. Velusamy, and then-Vice-Chancellor A. Ganapathy—bypassed mandatory procurement norms. Instead of sourcing computers from approved entities such as government-controlled institutions or the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), the committee authorized purchases from private vendors at dramatically inflated rates.
The Details of the Procurement: Inflated Prices and Procedural Violations
When the layers are peeled back, the magnitude of the procurement irregularities becomes clearer. The university, during the financial year in question, purchased 41 HP desktop computers, a server, and online UPS systems from M/s I Care—a private vendor who, according to records, was actually the highest bidder for the project. This directly contravenes the university’s procurement guidelines, which are both transparent and intended to ensure value-for-money acquisitions by mandating the use of specific public or approved vendors.The Deviations:
- HP Desktops in 2016 (Linguistics Department): Each unit purchased at a cost Rs 11,463 higher than that offered by ELCOT. The cumulative excess spending was estimated at Rs 5,71,241.
- Desktops for Statistics Department, 2017: Twenty units sourced at prices Rs 11,517 higher per unit than the ELCOT benchmark, accumulating an avoidable loss of Rs 2,30,340.
The Provisions and Their Purpose: Why Procurement Rules Matter
Public procurement rules are not arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles; they exist to ensure transparency, competition, and public confidence in the stewardship of public resources. In India, and especially in educational institutions funded by taxpayer money, adherence to these rules is critical.- ELCOT Benchmarking: ELCOT is a government enterprise that offers competitive rates for electronics, especially to public institutions. Procuring through ELCOT is not just common practice, it is often mandated.
- Vendor Selection Guidelines: The rules specify that government institutions must favor purchases from government-controlled enterprises, prison departments, or industrial cooperatives—entities believed to offer not only better rates but also more reliable after-sales support. These rules are designed to ward off the risks of bid rigging, kickbacks, and outright graft.
Patterns of Collusion: What Investigations Reveal About University Procurement
The language used by DVAC—citing “collusion,” “financial mismanagement,” and “causing financial loss”—is particularly telling. Investigative findings suggest that the irregularities were not isolated errors, but rather calculated actions supported (or at least, unchallenged) by a significant number of university officials.Besides A. Ganapathy and P. Velusamy, at least 15 other individuals, including university officials and private vendors, are named in the case. The broad sweep of accused indicates that procurement fraud is often a group endeavor, relying on a tacit chain of approval or willful ignorance across departments.
This pattern is not unique to Bharathiar University but reflects a challenge faced by public institutions globally: how to design and enforce accountability mechanisms robust enough to prevent group transgressions.
Impact on the Institution: Financial Losses and Reputational Harm
While the immediate financial loss (Rs 8,01,581) may seem modest relative to the university’s overall budget, the ripple effects are far-reaching. For a public university, every rupee misspent is a rupee less available for research grants, student facilities, or academic improvements. Just as crucial, however, is the reputational damage.- Reduced Stakeholder Trust: Prospective students, faculty, and donors alike consider integrity in university administration as a key factor in their engagement.
- Potential Impact on Funding: Government agencies and international grant bodies may subject future funding applications to increased scrutiny—or withhold support altogether—if recurrent or egregious lapses are detected.
- Administrative Paralysis: Once procurement comes under regulatory or legal review, day-to-day operations can stall, as approvals and projects languish under heightened oversight or risk aversion.
The Human Factor: Motives, Pressures, and Ethical Blindspots
Corruption, particularly in procurement, often arises not simply from greed but from a constellation of motives and pressures—personal relationships, entrenched vendor networks, or even the inertia of ‘how things are done’. For university officials, particularly in regions where oversight is sporadic or accountability mechanisms are weak, the temptation to shortcut procedures can be substantial.In this case, the willingness to engage with private vendors despite clear procurement mandates suggests not only a pursuit of personal or institutional gain but perhaps an over-familiarity with certain vendors, a lack of fear of repercussions, or a broader institutional culture of tolerance toward procedural violations.
Efforts to address such systemic issues therefore require more than just reactive legal action—they demand a cultural shift, ongoing vigilance, and incentives for compliance at all levels of administration.
Hidden Risks: What Else Can Go Wrong?
Beyond the obvious financial loss, such procurement scandals carry latent risks. The acceptance and normalization of vendor favoritism can spill over into other areas—maintenance contracts, infrastructure projects, research grant allocations—amplifying inefficiency, raising costs, and breeding further corruption.- Subpar Quality or Service: Overpaying does not always equate to higher quality. Private vendors operating under a cloud of collusion may deliver inferior products or skimp on after-sales support.
- Future blacklisting: University procurement scandals may lead to vendors being blacklisted, further narrowing an already small pool of eligible suppliers and making future compliance more complex.
- Legal Overhead: Defending against corruption charges diverts staff time and university financial resources from academic to legal affairs.
Notable Strengths: Institutional Response and the Role of Oversight
While the episode has revealed serious weaknesses, the prompt intervention by DVAC and the explicit invocation of strong anti-corruption statutes are signs of systemic strengths worth highlighting.- Robust Oversight Agencies: The fact that an external vigilance directorate is actively investigating and prosecuting such cases demonstrates a commitment—at least among oversight bodies—to rooting out malfeasance.
- Documentation and Trail: The ability to track excess spending against government benchmarks (like ELCOT) indicates that, despite collusion, enough documentation and institutional memory exists to reconstruct events and pursue accountability.
- Public Scrutiny: Media attention, whether auto-published or independently reported, brings a layer of democratic oversight that is crucial in pressuring institutions toward cleaner governance.
Lessons in Governance: What the Case Teaches Other Institutions
This case at Bharathiar University serves as a cautionary tale for educational and government institutions across India and beyond. The most important lessons include:- Update and Enforce Procurement Guidelines: Rules need not only to be established but reinforced through regular audits, actual enforcement, and periodic re-evaluation in light of evolving market conditions and vendor landscapes.
- Strengthen Internal Audit Mechanisms: Annual or random audits, independent of university management and reported directly to external agencies, help deter collusive patterns from taking root.
- Foster Whistleblower Protections: Ensuring that insiders who spot irregularities can report safely and anonymously is key to surfacing and correcting misconduct before it escalates.
- Digitalization: Implementing transparent, end-to-end digital procurement systems can hardwire best practices, create real-time alerts for deviations, and leave little room for unrecorded, off-book arrangements.
Academic Culture and Administrative Ethics: Setting the Right Tone
The culture of any academic organization, from its leadership down to entry-level employees, must reflect and reinforce ethical norms. In environments where questionable practices go unpunished or are tacitly condoned, corruption becomes not the exception but the rule.- Leadership by Example: Vice-chancellors and finance officers hold positions of unique influence. Their conduct sets a standard that either emboldens or dampens the willingness of others to follow the rules.
- Transparency in Decision-Making: Policies and purchasing decisions should be open to scrutiny—not only internally but by students, staff, and third-party observers. A culture of transparency is the most formidable antidote to corruption.
The Way Forward: Reforms, Redress, and Rebuilding Trust
As the legal proceedings inch forward, Bharathiar University—and the wider higher education system—must reckon with both the immediate damages and the longer-term need for reform.Regulatory Redress
First, prioritizing a fast and impartial legal process is critical. Justice delayed, especially in public corruption cases, is justice denied to the affected institution and its stakeholders.
Policy Overhaul
Second, the university should use this opportunity to overhaul its procurement policies, bringing them in line not only with government guidelines but with global best practices. Technology-enabled procurement, real-time public disclosure of bids, and third-party auditing can ensure greater accountability.
Public Apology and Restitution
Finally, institutions must never underestimate the power of acknowledging wrongdoing. Public apologies, coupled with efforts to recover lost funds, can help to restore confidence among students, parents, and the broader public.
Broader Implications: Corruption in the Digital Age
This case also raises timely questions about procurement in an age of rapid digitalization. As universities and public institutions continue to expand their technological infrastructure, the temptations and opportunities for procurement fraud only magnify.- Cybersecurity Concerns: Colluding with unreliable vendors or installing subpar technology can expose sensitive student and institutional data to breaches.
- Digital Footprints: At the same time, however, digital records make it more difficult to conceal irregularities, provided oversight bodies have the mandate and expertise to track them.
Conclusion: From Scandal to Opportunity
The DVAC’s case against former Bharathiar University officials is more than a headline about financial misconduct. It shines an unsparing light on how academic institutions can falter, the vulnerabilities inherent in their procurement systems, and the immense value of vigilance—both regulatory and communal.If approached with transparency and a genuine commitment to reform, such scandals can become inflection points that spur necessary change: an opportunity to repair, to learn, and to evolve. For Bharathiar University, and for public institutions everywhere, the challenge now is to transform public outrage and legal scrutiny into a renewed culture of integrity, rigorous oversight, and enduring accountability.
Source: www.lokmattimes.com TN Vigilance files case against former Bharathiyar University VC and others - www.lokmattimes.com
Last edited:
