Just about a fortnight after the services of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research director Prof Raghuram Rao Akkinepally were placed under suspension by the President, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday stayed the operation of the order.
This is the second time that the high court has issued the stay order. The Bench had earlier ordered stay on operation of the initial order of suspension.
One of the grounds for challenging the order was that it was not passed by the President.
But the passing of the order by the President led to a fresh cause of action, resulting in previous petition being rendered infructuous.
The director had filed the appeal through counsel Arun Gupta and it was initially argued by senior advocate Puneet Bali before the Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli. The Bench was of the view that important questions of law were involved in the matter of the director’s suspension.
The development took place about a month after a Single Judge of the High Court put the Board of Governors on notice, but refused to stay the operation of the impugned suspension order.
The challenge to the suspension order was mounted primarily on three grounds. Bali and Gupta submitted that the President of India was the “visitor” and had the powers to place under suspension the services. The Board of Governors had no such power.
Referring to the provisions of law, the counsel asserted that the powers to appoint were vested with the President. The role of the Board of Governors was restricted to recommending two names for the post. But the final appointment orders were passed by the President. The Board of Directors and even the Chairman had no jurisdiction act against the director, unless approved by the visitor, the President.
The Bench was also told that a petition filed by NIPER before the High Court was dismissed. The Board of Governors, subsequently, convened a meeting, where the orders of suspension were passed. The Director was not a part of the meeting. It was against the principles of natural justice as opportunity of hearing was not provided to the Director, who was sent out of the meeting. “This clearly shows the bias of the chairman against the petitioner…,” it was added.
The Bench was also told that the impugned order was illegal and liable to be set aside as it was suffering from lack of jurisdiction and opportunity of hearing was not offered to the director by the Board. Besides, the mandatory three-week notice as required under the statute was not issued before convening the meeting. As such, it was illegal and arbitrary and could not have been held.
The main ground for stay was that the show-cause notice was not issued by the President. Gupta contended under Section 11 of the NIPER Act that only the President could have initiated action.
