The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a directive to the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Rohtak to maintain the status quo on any decisions regarding its director, Dheeraj Sharma, until April 2. The order came after Sharma challenged a probe initiated by the central government into allegations of financial misconduct and discrepancies in his academic qualifications.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj of the high court responded to Sharma’s plea concerning the government’s actions on March 5, which included a directive to the education ministry to either suspend him or place him on leave pending an investigation. The Board of Governors (BoG) of the institute, which convened on Thursday afternoon, was permitted to meet but was instructed not to implement any decisions until the next court hearing.
The probe, mandated by President Droupadi Murmu in her capacity as the visitor of the institute, centers on Sharma’s tenure beginning in 2017 and includes scrutiny over his academic records. It specifically questions whether Sharma’s bachelor’s degree meets the first-division requirement stated for the director’s position. Sharma, whose first term ended on February 9, 2022, and who was reappointed on February 28 of the same year, is facing his second term under scrutiny.
Sharma’s legal challenge argues that invoking Section 10-A of the 2017 Act for the probe is both retrospective and illegal since the alleged offenses occurred before the amendment to the Act in August 2023. He also noted that there is an ongoing separate high court case concerning his degree submission, which currently has an interim order in his favor. Furthermore, Sharma claims that concerns regarding audit and financial irregularities have been resolved following a special audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) at the request of the respondents.
The central government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, insists that the probe was initiated with a “proper application of mind” under the IIM Act’s Section 10A. The government also alleges that Sharma habitually concealed material facts, both from the ministry and the court.
