Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

suspension of respondent No. 3 has been revoked vide order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure P/28) passed by the Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the Institute, respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 2, Director of the Institute also claimed in the writ petition that subsequent communications, dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure P/32), 23.06.2018 (Annexure P/33) and 25.06.2018 (Annexures P/34 and P/35 Colly.) be also quashed.

3. The grounds taken in the writ petition are that the Institute was constituted by an Act of Parliament namely the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, as amended vide Act of 2012 (for short, "the Act"). The Director being the Principal Academic and Executive officer of the Institute is competent authority to sue and be sued on behalf of the Institute. As petitioner No.2, the Director the Institute was on tour, the present writ petition was filed and verified by the officiating Director of the Institute Shri Jasjeet Singh Bagla under the authorization of Director of the Institute under Clause 11(13) of the First Statures of the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISER) issued vide notification dated 06.08.2014 (Annexure P/39), (hereinafter referred to as "the Statutes") and as such he has been arrayed as petitioner No.2. As per the petitioners, the suspension order, (Annexure P/3) was passed because of gross insubordination and for committing several acts of omission and commission by respondent No.3. Prior to passing of the said order, Annexure P/3, a Fact Finding committee was constituted and on the basis of the report submitted by the said Committee, the suspension order was passed. As per the petitioners, against the said order, the appeal lies 2 of 13 ... 

            d)     False LTC Claim:

            e)     Fixation of pay in respect of Dr. (Mrs.) P. Visakhi (wife of
Dr. Bapaiah) as Deputy Librarian consequent upon her placement into PB-4 with AGP of Rs.9000/-.

            f)     Appointment of his wife, Dr. (Mrs.) P. Visakhi, as
                   Librarian in IISER, Mohali

            g)     Insubordination of higher authorities."




                                      3 of 13



                                       ...
(ii) Mr. Rajan Kashyap, IAS, Retd. Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab and former State Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab as Vice Chairperson.
(iii) Mr. M. Radhakrishan, Registrar, IISER Thiruvananthapuram as Member and Secretary.

10. Terms of reference were also framed. The said committee conducted its proceedings which were duly video-graphed and the Director of the Institute appeared before the Committee alongwith six staff members (teaching and non-teaching) and the Registrar and one Assistant Registrar were also present with the Director. The Committee concluded the hearing on 2.7.2018 and submitted its report on the same date. Respondents No.1 called an emergent meeting of Board of Governors of the Institute on 13.07.2018 to consider and take appropriate action.

" The Agenda item no. 18.31.13 regarding suspension of Dr. P. Bapaiah, Registrar, IISER Mohali was discussed. Dr. P. Bapaiah (who was present in the meeting as Secretary, BOG) and the Special Invitees were requested by the Chairperson BOG, not to be present during discussion of this sensitive agenda item. As requested by Chairperson Senior Counsel Shri Vivek Singla was present for a while at the beginning of this agenda to clarify legal issues on the case filed by Dr. Bapaiah in the Punjab High Court regarding his suspension. After discussing the various angles of the agenda item and given that the Fact Finding Committee's report was already submitted to the court of law (and hence potentially sub-justice), the BOG, IISER Mohali, resolved to empower the Chairperson to constitute an unbiased Committee to look into all aspects of the matter, keeping legal issues in mind and in accordance with principles of Natural Justice. Regarding suspension of Dr. Bapaiah, BOG, IISER Mohali decided to wait upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab High Court, to avoid any scope of contempt of court. Keeping in view the interests of the respondents in the case for stay of suspension filed by 9 of 13 ...