Follow Us
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 13
About a fortnight after the services of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) director Prof Raghuram Rao Akkinepally were placed under suspension by the President, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the operation of the order.
Taking up the petition challenging the suspension order dated October 29, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa issued a notice of motion to the Union of India and other respondents for December 14.
Appearing before the Bench on the director’s behalf, senior advocate Puneet Bali and Arun Gupta submitted that a single judge issued notice of motion but declined the prayer for staying the operation of an earlier order of suspension passed on September 24. A Division Bench, however, stayed its operation while hearing an appeal in the matter. But a day prior to the listing of the appeal, the present order of suspension was passed.
Adverting to the impugned order dated October 29, Bali and Gupta submitted that suspension was ordered in pursuance to a show-cause notice issued on August 6 by the Union Deputy Secretary. The impugned order of suspension dated October 29, on the other hand, was passed under the orders of the “visitor” in ostensible exercise of the powers vested under the provisions of the NIPER Act.
Elaborating, the counsel said the President of India, being the “visitor” of the institute, was having the power to hold inquiries into the affairs, take action and issue directions he considered necessary in respect of matter concerning the institute.
They added that 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.
Another submission raised by the senior counsel was that the impugned order was vitiated by malafides. It was issued with a predetermined mind and was vindictive in nature.
Elaborating, the counsel said one of the acts of omission/misconduct recorded in the show-cause notice was that the petitioner had filed a petition before the High Court to challenge an order passed by the chairman of the Board of Governors whereby an appeal filed by the former Registrar of the institute against the order of suspension was accepted.
The counsel argued that certain observations had been made against the present petitioner in the order passed by the chairman, which virtually amounted to strictures. “It was towards vindication of his rights that he had filed the writ petition. The filing of a writ petition and approaching the competent court under such circumstances can never be construed as misconduct,” it was argued.
2
3
5