Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The petitioner has not challenged the Office Order dated 09.10.2020, vide which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by suitably amending the Writ Petition. However, an Application for Interim Relief dated 09.11.2020 has been filed inter-alia praying for staying the impugned orders dated 04.07.2020 and 23.04.2020 passed by respondent No.2.

24. Sri Trivedi has further submitted that provisions contained at Sl. No. 5 of Schedule I of First Regulations 2011 empowers Governing Body of SGPGI to consider the extension of lien of an Employee beyond Two years. Section 11 of the SGPGI Act of 1983 provides for limited power of the President of Governing Body. The alleged extension of Three Years with effect from 16.01.2019, vide Office Order dated 03.05.2019 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer of SGPGI as recorded by the Petitioner is misconceived in terms of its amendment of the clarification, vide Order dated 02.07.2019 whereby the Office Order dated 03.05.2019 has been amended to the effect that instead of granting permission for extension of service of the Petitioner for Three Years with effect from 16.01.2019 is substituted with "Placing the Petitioner's request before the Competent Authority i.e. the Governing Body".

27. The continuation of Petitioner's lien with effect from 16.01.2019 up till 30.04.2020 i.e. when he was required to submit his joining, the Petitioner has neither been penalized nor any adverse decision has been taken for the period when his lien had expired i.e. 16.01.2019 up till the date when he was required to submit his joining at SGPGI i.e. 30.04.2020.

28. The Resolution of the Governing Body dated 16/17.04.2020 against Agenda Item No.91.17 with regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings of termination of his service in case he fails to join his services on 30.04.2020 are not conclusive as the same is dependent upon the Enquiry Report and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Even otherwise, the disciplinary proceedings initiated, vide Office Order dated 09.04.2020 having not been challenged in the main Writ Petition, the same could not be the subject matter of the dispute raised by means of the instant Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is apparent that the Resolution of Respondent No.4 1.e. the Governing Body of SGPGI is neither arbitrary nor mechanical but the same have been passed with total application of mind strictly in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the SGPGI.

(a) the incumbent having attained the particular age or having completed the requisite period of service i.e. 20 years; and
(b) no disciplinary proceedings having been initiated or pending.

41. There is no quarrel on the point that the petitioner was granted extension of service for three years w.e.f. 16.1.2019 for holding post of Campus Director, NIFT by the President, SGPGI subject to the approval of the Governing Body. However, the Governing Body has refused such extension. The petitioner in a bonafide manner continued on the post of Campus Director, NIFT, Raebareli legitimately expecting that since the President of SGPGI is also President / Chairman of the Governing Body of SGPGI, therefore, the said decision of the President would be upheld by the Governing Body. There is no doubt that the decision of the Governing Body would be binding over the opinion or permission of an individual member including the Chairman / President of the statutory body but at the same time it may not be said to be any lapse on the part of the petitioner to continue on the post of Campus Director, NIFT pursuant to the permission being granted by the President for holding the post for further three years w.e.f. 16.1.2019. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner continuing on the post of Campus Director, NIFT, Raebareli is bona fide conduct in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

47. During the course of the arguments, I have considered one relevant aspect which has been indicated in para 33 of the writ petition whereby it has been categorically indicated that the post of the petitioner i.e. Associate Superintendent (Non-Medical) has been declared as 'Dying Cadre' and after his joining at NIFT, Raebareli on 15.1.2014 none has been posted on that post and that post will not exist after the retirement of the petitioner on 3.11.2023, the date of superannuation of the petitioner. By means of para 35 of the counter affidavit dated 11.11.2020, the opposite party replied the contents of para 33 of the writ petition submitting that merely because the petitioner's post at SGPGI has been declared as 'Dying Cadre', it does not give a right to the petitioner to disobey the direction of the superior. However, it is also clear from para 35 of the counter affidavit that neither anyone has been posted on the post of Associate Director (Non-Medial) at SGPGI after 15.1.2014 when the petitioner submitted his joining at NIFT, Raebareli nor any person would be appointed on such post after the superannuation of the petitioner and admittedly such post has been declared as 'Dying Cadre'.