Absentee Finance Officer of Tezpur University resurfaces as Sikkim University VC’s OSD

The sudden career shift of Braja Bandhu Mishra has raised many eyebrows in academic circles. Mishra, who until recently was the Finance Officer of Tezpur University, had become a key figure in the student protests over alleged financial irregularities on campus. On December 1, he stepped down from his post, saying the unrest had made it difficult for him to continue. But the real twist is not his exit from Tezpur University — it is how smoothly he managed to secure a new administrative job at Sikkim University even as the controversy around him was still growing.

The timing appears almost too perfect. Mishra stopped attending office on September 22, just a day after protests erupted on the Tezpur University campus. For more than two months, while allegations intensified and students demanded transparency, the Finance Officer remained absent. Yet even as unrest grew, Mishra was quietly preparing for a professional transition that now raises serious questions about institutional accountability and potential complicity across universities. Documents examined for this investigation show that on October 19, Sikkim University issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Vice-Chancellor.

The eligibility criteria matched Mishra almost line by line: a retired or retiring Finance Officer at Level 14; deep familiarity with Government of India financial rules; and experience in accounts, audits, purchases, establishment matters, and contracts. It was a post designed with uncanny precision, sitting at the intersection of administrative authority and financial oversight but without the burden or scrutiny of a formal Finance Officer’s appointment.

The deadline for applications was November 7, and by November 11, Mishra was already being interviewed through hybrid mode. At the very moment Tezpur University was struggling with allegations of financial mismanagement, its own Finance Officer — absent from duty for weeks — was actively participating in a selection process for a sensitive financial-advisory role in another Central University. The selection committee recommended his name without recorded hesitation. There is no evidence of any background verification, no inquiry into his unexplained absence from Tezpur, and no acknowledgment of the protests or allegations that had engulfed his previous workplace. It was as though the uproar in Tezpur existed in a separate universe, irrelevant to Sikkim University’s recruitment decisions.

What followed is even more astonishing. From November 12 to November 18, Sikkim University’s Executive Council (EC) approved Mishra’s appointment entirely through email circulation. The responses captured in the internal communications show a series of uncritical endorsements: “Approved,” “I endorse the agenda,” “Approved by me,” “Approved.” Not a single EC member raised a question about the candidate’s background, the timing of his application, or the controversies unfolding in Tezpur. Some EC members even informally urged the administration to avoid approving sensitive appointments through circulation and instead convene proper meetings, but the advice was ignored. The approval process moved with startling speed, and the silence surrounding it is perhaps more telling than any statement. At a time when public institutions are expected to uphold transparency and due diligence, Sikkim University’s Executive Council acted as little more than a rubber-stamp authority.

Placed side by side, the timelines of both universities form a troubling picture. In Tezpur University, Mishra ceased attending office on September 22; protests continued through October and November; and he officially relinquished his post only on December 1. Meanwhile, in Sikkim University, the job advertisement appeared on October 19; applications closed on November 7; the interview took place on November 11; and approvals were completed between November 12 and 18. This overlap reveals a disquieting fact: Mishra had already secured a prestigious administrative position in another Central University even before his resignation from Tezpur University was formalised. This is not merely a coincidence of dates; it is an indictment of a system where officials facing serious allegations can quietly transition to new posts without accountability.

The agenda note circulated within Sikkim University sheds further light on the circumstances behind this appointment. It acknowledges that the Finance Officer and Internal Audit Officer posts had remained vacant beyond permissible timelines. Instead of addressing these critical vacancies through transparent recruitment, the administration opted to create the OSD post, citing an “urgent requirement” in financial administration. This urgency conveniently aligned with Mishra’s availability and eligibility.

Taken together, the documents expose a system that appears either incapable of or unwilling to conduct even basic background checks before appointing individuals to sensitive positions. Tezpur University allowed its Finance Officer to remain absent for over two months while protests and allegations mounted. No public statement clarified the status of the allegations against him. No inquiry results were released. The resignation passed without institutional accountability. Sikkim University, for its part, created a post strikingly aligned with Mishra’s credentials, processed his application with extraordinary speed, and approved his appointment without a single probing question. The Executive Council’s silence, combined with the timing of events, creates the impression of a tightly sealed pipeline between institutions — one that enables questionable officers to shift from controversy to comfort without facing consequences.

This episode raises fundamental questions about governance in India’s Central Universities. If an officer facing serious allegations can disappear during a crisis, secure an interview elsewhere, obtain unanimous approval, and re-enter academic administration unchallenged, what does that say about the system’s ability to self-regulate? Where is the mechanism that ensures inter-university verification of applicants’ disciplinary or administrative status? Why do recruitment bodies ignore publicly known controversies at other institutions? And why is silence the default response when vigilance is most needed?

The curious case of Braja Bandhu Mishra exposes more than an individual’s troubling career trajectory; it reveals a structural weakness that allows allegations to be outrun and accountability to be evaded. Sikkim University owes the public a clear explanation of how due diligence was conducted and why no red flags were acknowledged. Tezpur University owes its students transparency on the status of the financial allegations that sparked months of unrest. And Mishra owes the academic community far more than a quiet resignation and an even quieter re-entry into another institution’s administrative heart.

For now, the facts speak loudly: Mishra left Tezpur University under the shadow of serious allegations, and he entered Sikkim University with astonishing ease. The system let it happen. Until the system changes, the next story like this will not be a matter of curiosity — it will be an inevitability.