Madras University syndicate seeks probe into ‘irregularities’ in purchase made by research centre-OxBig News Network

University of Madras. File
| Photo Credit: B. Velankanni Raj

Syndicate members of the University of Madras have demanded an inquiry by a syndicate sub-committee into alleged irregularities in the purchase of equipment for a centre for social research at the institution.

A written demand was made to the Registrar of the varsity in August 2024 based on the enquiry committee findings regarding the purchase of furniture for the Dr. MGR Centre for Social Research, which had been established with a grant of ₹5 crore in 2021.

Recently, the finance committee had slashed finances for the university.

The members alleged to the Registrar that the government-constituted enquiry committee to probe the purchase of furniture for one of its centres “had shielded the main culprit.” They wanted a syndicate sub-committee to “review the enquiry, identify and examine comprehensively all the offenders involved in the improper purchase, and probe any malafide intentions of pecuniary benefits.”   

The first coordinator of Dr. MGR Social Research Centre was S.S. Sundaram, the present head of Indian History Department. He is also a syndicate member.

An audit in 2022 found that the centre had violated rules while purchasing equipment and furniture. The government constituted an enquiry committee with a convener and two members: G.M. Akbar Ali, a retired judge, as the convener, and I.V. Manivannan, former bureaucrat and the university’s finance officer.

The committee’s report found that the purchase of furniture was made on the coordinator’s oral instructions. The purchase section bought furniture from a private company instead of procuring them through the public sector unit, TANSI (Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation).  

The enquiry committee said the action of the Works Department in preparing the estimate of the furniture without any written request “is not in order.” It termed it a “gross violation of procedure adopted by Public Works Department in government departments.” 

The members questioned why the centre’s coordinator was never called for inquiry despite the Works Department stating that the official had accompanied them and orally instructed them on the purchase of furniture. All other persons, including the then assistant registrar of the purchase section, were questioned, they pointed out.  

The members wrote, “…it is puzzling why the then coordinator Dr. S.S. Sundaram was not summoned or even named in the report.” The members said: “It gives rise to an apprehension, if this an attempt to shield the offender.”