If university observers are cynical about the impact of the hotly-discussed De committee report on the fake mark list racket it is because scores of such inquiry reports have earlier been consigned to the waste bin, or so it seems.

It was in January 1989 that the university's Finance Committee decided to hike the fees in certain areas considering the deficit budget. The committee worked out some measures to ensure that the deficit was partly met. The proposal was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 11(4) and subsequently approved by the Executive Council.

These measures included:

1. The Examination Fee be raised to the next multiples of Rs 10 effective from the winter 1989 examinations.

2. Convocation Fee be raised from Rs 20 to Rs 50 to be taken along with examination fee from thestudents appearing for Final Examinations to be made effective from winter 1989 examinations.

3. Migration Fee to be increased from Rs 20 to Rs 50 effective from April 1, 1989.

4. Continuation (of affiliation) Fee for colleges to be increased from Rs 3,000 to Rs 5,000 from the year 1989-90.

5. Ph.D. Registration Fee to be increased from Rs 75 to Rs 500 from the year 1989-90.

The number of students who appeared for the examinations was 50,875 in winter 1989 and 1,26,514 in summer 1990, according to official records. The examination fee hike would have been applicable to them.

In the winter examination alone, there were 7,460 final year students who would have had to pay the additional Rs 30 as convocation fee.

The hike of Rs 2,000 would have been applicable to 124 colleges that year. As for the migration fee, on an average between three and four thousand students require migration every year. The average rate of Ph.D. registrations is about 200 a year.

All told, even a conservative estimate wouldput the financial impact of these measures to well over Rs 10 lakh.

But these measures were not implemented in 1989 causing a substantial loss to the already depleted coffers of the university.

When the Finance Committee learnt of this, it appointed a sub-committee consisting of Dr Ved Prakash Mishra and M M Dehankar to inquire into the serious lapse.

In its report the sub-committee placed the blame on the Assistant Registrar (Audit), R G Dakhne, who is now Deputy Registrar (Academics), and Finance Officer, Narendra Admane, who has retired.

During personal examination, the sub-committee found Dakhne and Admane blaming each other for the lapse. Dakhne claimed he had forwarded the relevant documents to Admane and Admane claimed that he never received them.

Looking at the office orders which assign duties to officials, the sub-committee found that the Assistant Registrar (Audit) is responsible for assisting the Finance Officer in secretarial work and taking action on the minutes of Finance Committeemeetings.

"As per this document the primary responsibility of the implementation of the minutes of the Finance Committee, therefore, is vested with the Assistant Registrar (Audit)," the report noted.

The report added that "the Finance Officer should have taken extra supervisory care for its prompt implementation without waiting for the Assistant Registrar (Audit) to place it before him...In the said case, the Finance Officer has failed in his supervisory control..."

In conclusion, the sub-committee had held Dakhne responsible for failing in his duty to take action on the minutes and Admane for failure to get a vital decision implemented.

This report was to be placed before the Executive Council for "suitable action".

Sources in the university said the report made its last stop in the Registrar's office. After that, nobody seems to know what happened to it.