w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Srinarayan Sharma v/s Indian Institute of Management & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80301MP2004PTC016724

Company & Directors' Information:- H S MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC141500

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2005PTC140941

    Stay Application No. 5288 of 2016, Misc. Application No. 8357 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 199 of 2016 (S/B)

    Decided On, 17 August 2016

    At, High Court of Uttarakhand


    For the Petitioner: P.R. Mullick, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Indu Sharma, R3, Devesh Ghildiyal, Advocates, Anil Kumar Joshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Judgment Text

V.K. Bist, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:‐

'a. issue a writ, order or direction, in this nature of certiorari, quashing the summary termination order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure No.3), passed by the Director IIM Kashipur (respondent no.1) and to hold that the same is against the principles of natural justice and fair play and to hold that the same is unconstitutional.

b. issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Board of Governors (respondent no.2), to hold an impartial and independent enquiry, as propagated in Central Civil Services Rules 1965, which mutatis-mutandis apply in accordance with Rules 16 of the Rules & Regulations of IIM kashipur and for which a representation dated 16.05.2016, has been mailed by the petitioner (Annexure No. 14) and to order continuation of service to the petitioner in the IIM kashipur.

c. issue a writ of prohibition, or a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondents no. 1 & 2, through their servants, agents and subordinates, from directly or indirectly giving effect to the termination order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure No. 3) and prohibiting them from ousting the petitioner and his family from their residential accommodation at 115 Prakash City, Bazpur Road, Kashipur.'

2. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 03.06.2016, this Court passed the following order:

'Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an appeal will be filed before the Board of Governors within a period of one week.

Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior counsel would submit that the said appeal will be considered and disposed of on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

We record the above submissions. We also record the submission of Mr. Sharad Sharma that, till the appeal is disposed of, the petitioner will not be evicted'. (emphasis supplied)

3. Thereafter, on 11.07.2016, this Court granted one month’s further time to the petitioner for filing an appeal before the Board of Governors.

4. Now, a misc. application (CLMA No. 8357 of 2016) has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that the appellate authority has set aside the termination order of the petitioner, vide its order dated 28.07.2016, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience.

'A perusal of the Appeal paper book shows that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Appellant Prof. Srinarayan Sharma before passing the order of termination which is in contravention to the settled position of law and therefore ought to be set aside.

I am not calling the Appellant Prof. Srinarayan Sharma for a personal hearing as I am providing him the best relief possible in the circumstances without commenting on the merits of the matter.

I, Dhruv Manmohan Sawhney, the Appellate Authority by being the Chairman of IIM, Kashipur, set aside the order of termination of the Appellant, Prof. Srinarayan Sharma, and remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Director, IIM, kashipur to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Appellant’s Term of Appointment, the applicable rules and regulations of IIM, Kashipur.' (emphasis supplied)

5. In other words, the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Management Society, has been allowed and the petitioner’s termination has been set aside by the appellate authority.

6. In view the fact that the termination order has been set aside by the appellate authority, we are of the considered view that the writ petition does not survive any more.

7. However, it is directed that the respondent authority shall pay the salary of the petitioner for this period in accordance with law.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has an apprehension that the officer, who is bias

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed against the petitioner, is appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It is provided that if the petitioner feels that the enquiry officer so appointed is biased, he is at liberty to raise his grievance before the appointing authority for change of such an enquiry officer. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.