Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondents No.1 and 2 approving the draft agenda of 73rd Board of Governors' circulated by respondent No. 3 while under suspension, being totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition; that National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as "NIPER") and its Director, petitioners No.1 and 2 herein, have filed this writ petition challenging orders dated 14.6.2018 (Annexure P/7) on the ground that petitioner No.2 has passed the order of suspension of respondent No.3 on the allegation of gross insubordination and for committing several acts of omission and commission due to which a detailed and comprehensive charge sheet has since been issued to him. Respondent No.1, Chairman, Board of Governors (BOG) of NIPER exercised purported appellate jurisdiction, which otherwise not vested in him and the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. As there are allegations of mala fides against him as well, as such he has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 by name.

3. As per the petitioners, the Chairman of BOG of NIPER is Appellate Authority and can exercise the appellate jurisdiction only against the orders imposing penalties under the NIPER Act and Statute. He has acted in a grossly unfair and illegal manner entertained the appeal against order of suspension of respondent No.3. The said ex-parte order was passed without issuance of any notice to the petitioners and even For Subsequent orders see LPA-1443-2018 2 of 11 ...

per clause 14(i) Table II of the NIPER Statutes 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "Statute 2003"), only the Registrar of the Institute has been authorised to represent the Institute in suits or proceedings by or against the Institute. The powers, duties and functions of the Registrar of the Institute are contained in clause 14 of the Statute 2003. As per the answering respondents, the writ petition is frivolous and has been filed with vested interests. There was no authorization by the BOG to the Director of the Institute to file the present writ petition. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Chairman, BOG of NIPER. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as competent authority has neither authorized the petitioners to file the present writ petition by any resolution nor the petitioners are competent to file the present writ petition. The petitioners have not been able to produce any valid resolution issued by BOG. Plea was also taken in the written statement that if at all, the petitioners were aggrieved by passing of the impugned order, they could have taken the matter before the BOG which is the Apex and superintending body of the Institute under NIPER Act, 1998. As per the respondents, the petitioners have filed this petition with mala fide motive to disrupt working of the Institute. The matter was considered in 72nd BOG meeting held on 12.12.2017 and the BOG gook a very serious view of gross misconduct on the part of petitioner No.2 and has misled this Court by not disclosing the correct facts. Respondent no.1 has exercised the appellate jurisdiction under the NIPER Act, 1998. Appeal lies against the suspension order as per Rule 23(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short, "1965 For Subsequent orders see LPA-1443-2018 4 of 11 ...

12. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners contended that the present writ petition has been filed by two petitioners, i.e., National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) through its Director and petitioner No.2 is Director, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER). He fairly conceded that as per the above provisions of the Statute, the writ petition may not maintainable by the NIPER, but the writ petition filed by petitioner No.2, i.e. Director of the Institute, is maintainable mainly on the ground that the order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure P/7) which has been challenged in the writ petition, is an ex parte order and certain strictures have been passed against petitioner No.2 without affording any opportunity of hearing and the law does not permit so. On this point, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Public For Subsequent orders see LPA-1443-2018 7 of 11 ...