All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi

3. The respondent no.1, an Indian Forest service officer of the Reason: Uttarakhand cadre of 2002 Batch was posted as Deputy 2 Secretary at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from 29.6.2012 till 28.6.2016.

4. The said post of Deputy Secretary was created with the approval of the Department of Expenditure, inter alia, to coordinate and manage infrastructure projects and ensure their timely completion, to exercise management and control of the Institute and to coordinate with Multi Disciplinary Experts.

7. As stated above, respondent no.1 was appointed Deputy Secretary of AIIMS on 29.6.2012. As per the work allocation order the respondent no.1 was also made Central Vigilance Officer of the AIIMS.

8. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the work of the General Section was withdrawn from the respondent no.1 in November 2012, the work of Central Vigilance Officer was withdrawn from him in August 2014, the work of dealing with grievances was withdrawn from him some time in 2015 and in December 2015 the work of the Estate Section was withdrawn from him. Ultimately the respondent no.1 was left practically without any work, apart from signing pension papers and booking guest houses.

9. According to the respondent no.1, there was delay in completion of infrastructure projects, which along with the way in which the respondent no.1 had been denuded of duties by successive office orders, attracted severe criticism in a report of the Parliamentary Committee.

12. According to the respondent no.1, no complaint of any kind was received against him from any employee during his two year tenure as Central Vigilance Officer of the Institute. However, the very same persons, who had earlier showered praises on the respondent no.1 turned against him for extraneous reasons, particularly his role in exposing corruption.

13. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed an application being O.A. No.1887 of 2015 before the Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi, inter alia, for directions on the concerned authorities to allocate the work of Deputy Secretary to the respondent no.1. The said application has been dismissed by a judgment and order dated 17.5.2016.

14. The respondent no.1 has alleged that the duties of Central Vigilance Officer were withdrawn from him as he had unearthed irregularities and corruption in infrastructure projects. The nature or reasons for the disputes between the respondent no.1 and the appellant are not relevant to the issues involved in this appeal.

15. A memorandum dated 7.1.2016 was served on the respondent no.1, informing him that the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences had placed on record his displeasure with insubordination, indiscipline and lack of work ethics of the respondent no.1 during the Winter Session of Parliament in the year 2015, and directed that a copy of the said memorandum be kept in the personal file of the respondent no.1. A representation made by the respondent no.1 against the aforesaid memorandum was rejected by the Competent Authority.

19. On 19.6.2017, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition being WPSB No.225 of 2017 before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the orders dated 11.1.2017 and 15/20.4.2017. The respondent no.1 also filed an application being PT No.286/2017 in OA No. 1342/2016 before the Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi for transfer of OA No. 1342/2016 from the Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi to its Bench at Nainital. The appellant has filed a counter affidavit to the said application.

21. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 instituted an application being OA No.331/00790/2017 before the Nainital Bench of the CAT challenging the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of the year 2015-16 whereupon an interim order was passed in favour of the respondent no.1 on 18.9.2017, by a Division Bench of the Tribunal, the operative part whereof is set out hereinbelow:-

23. Challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that the Chairman of CAT, sitting singly, could not have stayed proceedings pending before a Division Bench, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition being W.P.(SB) No. 259/2018 in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

24. By the impugned order dated 21.8.2018, which is under appeal, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2017 of the Chairman, observing that the Chairman of the Tribunal, while sitting singly, could not stay the proceedings pending before the Division Bench. The High Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant.

(a) copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made or proposed to be made; and

56. Section 24 of the Act limits the power to pass interim order whether by way of injunction, stay or otherwise by imposing conditions on the exercise of such power. No interim order is to be made unless copies of the application along with documents in support of the plea for interim order are furnished to the 21 party against whom such application is made and opportunity to the heard is given to such party.

57. The aforesaid condition can only be dispensed with in exceptional cases, if the Tribunal is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary to pass an interim order for preventing any loss to the applicant which cannot adequately be compensated in money. The interim order, in such case is to be of maximum duration of fourteen days unless the requirements of sub-sections (a) and (b) are complied with, before the expiry of fourteen days and the interim order is extended.

73. In our considered view, the Division Bench rightly allowed the writ petition. The Chairman, like the Chief Justice of the Higher Courts or the Chief Judge of subordinate courts, may be higher in order of protocol and may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities. However, the Chairman, acting judicially, is equal to any other Member. The Chairman, being one amongst equals, could not have stayed proceedings pending before a larger Bench. We find no grounds to interfere with the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court rightly allowed the writ petition with costs. Since we have upheld the order of the Division Bench of the HighCourt under appeal and held that the order of the Chairman of CAT staying proceedings before the two member Bench was without 29 jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, we need not go into the various other contentions raised on behalf of the respondent no.1.

74. The appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from the date.