Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dr.Kartar Singh Son Of Late Sh.Mange Ram vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.304-CH of 2011
Chandigarh, this the Ist day of April, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER(A)
Dr.Kartar Singh son of Late Sh.Mange Ram, aged about 62 years, Professor, Department of Superspeciality of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAJIV NARAIN RAINA with SHRI KARAN SINGH SINGLA
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh, through its Director.
3. Governing Body of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Member Secretary.
4. Prof. K.K.Talwar, Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
5. Sh.G.K.Pattanaik, IAS, Principal Secretary to Governor/ Visitor Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), U.P., Lucknow
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: None
ORDER
(on interim relief) HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
Factual /documented scenario, averred in the course of the pleadings and presented at the time of motion hearing, in the first instance:-
The applicant herein, a native Doctor retaining the umbilical chord with Respondent No.2, the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (hereinafter referred to as PGIMER), authorizedly headed the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS, for short) for a period of about three years (from August 2003 to August 2006).
2. An inquiry into three items of irregularities, allegedly committed by the applicant, came to be ordered against him. It was to be conducted by the then Additional Director of SGPGIMS (Sri Rakesh Kumar Goyal, I.A.S.)
3. The Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 7.11.2008 indicted the applicant on the three items of charges. One of the charges against him was that he made certain appointments in excess of the sanctioned posts and the appointees included candidates who had not paid the requisite application fee. Another charge was that in spite of the orders dated 20.6.2007 of the then Governor/ Visitor of the Institute, the applicant did not initiate the desired action against certain delinquent officials. Still another charge was that he had granted an irregular scale of pay to certain category of employees.
4. After the return of the applicant to the PGIMER, the Principal Secretary to the Governor/ Visitor addressed letter dated 7.1.2011 to the Director, PGIMER (Respondent No.4 herein) requesting the latter to take action against the applicant on the basis of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 7.11.2008. The applicant has not been afforded an opportunity of a hearing in the context till date and Respondent No.4 (who is Member-Secretary of the Selection Body, accountable for recommending names for appointment to the post of Director, PGIMER) has made the proceedings aforementioned a part of the agenda.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, that the Preliminary Inquiry was incompetent on the face of it inasmuch as it had been held by an officer who was junior in hierarchy to him. It is also argued that the alleged excess selections came to be made on 24.6.2007 after the applicant had demitted office in August 2006. It is also argued, in the context, that the aspect of completion of procedural formalities (including the fact or otherwise of filing of application fee) had to be gone into by the office and no accountability in that behalf could be validly fixed upon the applicant who headed the SGPGIMS.
6. The further plea raised is that there was not occasion for the applicant to comply with the orders dated 20.6.2007 of the Governor/ Visitor because he had already demitted office in August 2006.
7. Qua the award of incorrect pay scales, it is argued that the matter had been referred by the applicant to a Committee, consisting of S/Shri A.K.Bhatt and R.K.Sharma ( the latter was the then Incharge of the Hospital Administration and is presently the Director of SGPGIMS) whose decision was approved by the Finance Committee and, thereafter, by the Governing Body of the Institute (SGPGIMS).
8. In the context of the plea of malafides against Respondent No.4, it is argued that the applicant tops the list of signatories who addressed a communication to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, wherein allegations of personal hue had been made against Respondent No.4. In raising that plea, sustenance is drawn from Annexure A-3, which is a copy of communication dated 30.3.2009, addressed by the Faculty Members of PGIMER, Chandigarh to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi.
9. On the basis of the above indicated factual averments and documentation, it is argued that the entire exercise is malafide at the hands of Respondent No.4 who wants to go all out to ensure that the applicant herein is not considered for appointment as Director, PGIMER in the light of the pendency of the chargesheet on the basis of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 7.11.2008 which came to be served upon the applicant only on 18.3.2011.
10. The learned counsel sees red in the timing of service of the chargesheet.
11. It is argued that if the applicant is not considered and the selection process is concluded, it will cause irreparable loss to the applicant who is meritorious to the core.
12. Notice.
13. Notice re-stay too.
14. List on 6.4.2011.
15. Qua interim relief, the learned counsel for the applicant argues that the relevant Selection Body may be directed to consider the applicant for appointment aforementioned without taking the chargesheet into consideration and further that Respondent No.4 may be directed not to participate in the selection process aforementioned when the name of the applicant comes up for consideration.
16. It is to state the obvious that the presentation made before the Bench, though averred to be supported by documentation, is ex parte in character. A final view shall surface, obviously only after the party opposite has made the presentation. In the totality of the circumstances of the material obtaining on the file and the presentation made, we order that consideration of the applicant for appointment aforementioned, shall not be impeded by the pendency of the chargesheet aforementioned. We are not inclined to restrain Respondent No.4 from participating in the selection process. We would leave it to him to take a decision in the light of the allegations of malafides made against him. Advisedly, the result of the selection process shall not be announced without the orders of the Court.
17. We would like to make it clear that this order shall enable the applicant to be considered for the appointment. This will not, however, be taken to be an expression of opinion either on the merits of the case or qua the allegations of malafides against respondent No.4.
18. It would, obviously, be open to the respondents react to the plea/ presentation made and to point out any factual inaccuracies, if any, therein.
19. This order shall be operative till the next date of hearing.
20. DASTI as well.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: April 1, 2011 `bss 1 (OA No. 304-CH of 2011)