ISSER litigation ‘most unfortunate’: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 18

Dubbing as “most unfortunate” the litigation launched by director of Mohali-based “premier” Indian Institute of Science Education and Research against its chairperson over the functioning of the institute’s registrar, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the director was not competent to set the judicial process in motion.

The director, in February, had placed under suspension the services of the registrar, Dr P Bapaiah, as “disciplinary proceeding was contemplated”.

The operation of the order was stayed on March 22 by the high court, but the stay was vacated on June 1 with liberty to the appellate authority to decide the registrar’s “appeal” following which the chairperson revoked the suspension.

Dismissing on Tuesday the petition challenging the revocation of suspension, Justice Shekher Dhawan ruled the institute being a body corporate was certainly competent to file a petition.

But it was required to be authorised by the institute’s Board of Governors.

In the present case, the Board did not authorise the filing of the writ petition. The director himself was not competent to file the same on the institute’s behalf without the Board’s approval.

“There was no authorisation by the Board of Governors to the director to file the present writ petition,” Justice Dhawan added.

In his detailed order, Justice Dhawan observed the chairperson was authorised to constitute a committee. Headed by former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice SS Sodhi with Punjab’s former Chief Secretary Rajan Kashyap as the vice-chairmen and Registrar of an MHRD institute M Radhakrishnan as a member-secretary, the committee conducted its proceedings which were “duly video-graphed”.

“The committee has already conducted the enquiry and this court has gone through the   report submitted before the Board of Governors…,” Justice Dhawan added

Referring to the provisions of law, Justice Dhawan asserted the chairperson “may” exercise the powers of the Board and inform it of the action taken for approval in the next meeting.

“It is needless to say that if the institute registrar, otherwise a main functionary, has been placed under suspension and it is a matter of dispute whether he has been placed under suspension because of actual misconduct on his part or such an order was passed by the director because of his biased mind against the registrar, at any rate the chairperson was legally competent to pass such an order in emergent cases”.

Justice Dhawan added it was a case of extreme emergent nature. Taking the matter to be such, the chairperson passed the impugned order. There was absolutely no illegality in it.