AMU Visitor’s Inquiry resumed against Prof. Azis

AMU Visitor’s Inquiry resumed against Prof. Azis But the hon’ble Prof. Azis maintains, ‘the allegations of corruption are a myth’. How uncharitable on the part of the apparently friendly MHRD to order the Inquiry and defame the noble soul. The new Inquiry committee to go into the allegations against Prof. Abdul Azis the Vice-Chancellor is headed by Justice B.A. Khan and Justice Akbar Baroocha is required to submit the report by May end. At its first meeting held on 05.04.2010 at Delhi (not Aligarh) it made clear that the Inquiry is against the hon’ble Prof. Azis and not the University and party to the Inquiry are people who are against the VC and those who are supporting the VC and signatories (all teachers) of the so-called counter allegations. Thus the confusion which was all along deliberately created by Prof. Azis to hoodwink the masses, is removed Consequently, Shri Ejaz Maghbool who has been appointed as University Counsel at a whooping fee of about Rs. 90000/- per hearing was asked by the Committee not to appear as there are no allegations against the University. Prof. Azis has been asked to appear on 10th May to plead his case or send a lawyer for the purpose. The earlier Inquiry committee headed by Justice Fakhruddin was more friendly, liberal and democratic in its approach. At the very outset, it invited all the members of the Court, EC and AC (a total of over 200) and sought their approval to continue the Inquiry and even invited complaints, if any. How sweet and considerate of it. It was in a way free for all and would have taken a life time to complete the Inquiry. Fortunately, difference cropped up between the Chairman and the member forcing the member to resign. The Chairman followed suit and resigned and the Committee had to be disbanded. It was in Oct, 2009 but the Ministry who is soft towards the extremely cooperative Prof. Azis, dragged it feet and took four long months to re-constitute the Committee. From the way the new committee endeared itself we may hope that report would appear within the two months of the specified time. Does it not lie in the domain of the Inquiry Committee to demand the removal of Prof. Azis from office during the pendency of the Inquiry so that fair and unhindered inquiry could be conducted as is the rule elsewhere in the country? The position taken by Shri Kapil Sibal that the AMU Act does provide for removal of VC is too simplistic and deliberate and intended to assist the most non-co-operative Prof. Azis. Shall no one be punished for a murder, as the AMU Act does not provide for it in so many words? Prof. Ziauddin Ahmad (Retd,) Department of Botany Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh