No stay on proposed disciplinary proceedings: High Court Bench

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 17

Just about six months after the services of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research director Prof Raghuram Rao Akkinepally were placed under suspension by the President, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has modified its earlier order. The Bench made it clear that stay on the suspension of petitioner’s services would continue, but there would be no stay on proposed disciplinary proceedings.

“The respondents - Union of India and others - are at liberty to proceed with the proposed disciplinary proceedings to be initiated, if any, in accordance with law…” Justice Arun Monga asserted.

The order came after Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and NIPER counsel Rajiv Atma Ram contended that an application for vacation of stay had been necessitated as the entire disciplinary proceedings, proposed to be initiated, had been put to a halt by virtue of interim stay granted by the court. 

“Resultantly, the respondents are unable to take a final decision in the matter. Not only the petitioner is non-cooperative, but also the charge-sheet cannot be issued since the operation of the order dated October 29, 2018, has been stayed in totality,” it was added.

Justice Monga said the petitioner might join the disciplinary proceedings and furnish response in support of his defense. He was also at liberty to raise objections available to him, including the ones raised in the present petition.

“In the event, the respondents pass any adverse order on conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the same shall not be implemented for a period of 14 days to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law,” Justice Monga added.

Before parting with the case, Justice Monga confirmed the interim stay on the suspension of the petitioner’s services “until the respondents take a final decision by passing appropriate orders after the outcome of departmental proceedings”.

Challenging the suspension order dated October 29, 2018, his counsel senior advocate Puneet Bali and Arun Gupta had earlier submitted that it was ordered in pursuance to a show cause notice issued on August 6, last year, by the Union Deputy Secretary.

The impugned order was passed under the orders of the “visitor” or the President of India in ostensible exercise of the powers vested under the provisions of the NIPER Act. Elaborating, the counsel said the President, being the “visitor” of the institute, was having the power to hold inquiries into the affairs, take action and issue directions he considered necessary regarding matter concerning the institute.

They added the order was not sustainable as the initiation of proceedings by virtue of issuance of show cause notice was not at the hands of the competent authority — the “visitor”. They further argued that consequential orders were not sustainable once the initiation of proceedings itself was bad.