Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 – s.46(b) – Transitional provisions – Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 – Statute No.28(1) – Removal of employees of University – President of India, being the Visitor of the University approved the appointment of the First Registrar – First Registrar joined the services of the University – During the period of probation, his services terminated – First Registrar filed writ petition seeking quashing of the termination order – Single Judge directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits – Division Bench found the termination order to be stigmatic and remitted the matter to the University, to proceed afresh – First Registrar filed SLP which was dismissed – First Registrar reinstated in service and on the very same day placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings – Subsequently, Memorandum of Charges served upon him – Enquiry report that the charges against him stood proved – Enquiry report forwarded to the Secretary of Ministry of Civil Aviation who then submitted the proposal for approval of the Visitor, who accorded approval to the same – Thereafter, the order terminating the services of the First Registrar conveyed – Writ petition by First Registrar challenging the same, and during the pendency thereof, advertisement issued for filling up the post of Registrar of the University – First Registrar filed another writ petition seeking quashing of the fresh advertisement – Single Judge held that the services of the First Registrar had never been extended beyond the initial period of probation of one year, thus, only entitled to one month’s notice prior to termination, and the appellants directed to pay one month’s salary to the First Registrar – Division Bench held that the entire action against the First Registrar had been undertaken by the officers of MOCA, which had no role to play under the Act or the Statutes, that the Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings concerning officers and employees of the University, thus, the entire action taken against the First Registrar was without jurisdiction, and quashed the order passed by the Single Judge, the order issued by the Deputy Secretary, MOCA, and the First Registrar was entitled to back wages/salary – Correctness:
Held: s.46(b) and Statute No.28(1) must, be read in the light of s.16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having power to make appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person so appointed in exercise of that power – Thus, the appointing authority necessarily possesses the power to terminate the services of the employee appointed by it – Pursuant to the remand, an Enquiry Committee was constituted – Memorandum of Charges was served on the First Registrar and Enquiry Report was submitted – Visitor granted approval for termination of services of First Registrar, which was communicated to him – Tenure of the First Registrar u/s.46(b) was three years i.e., from 01.03.2019 till 28.02.2022 – Thus, in terms of Statute No.28(1), the services of the First Registrar were terminated by the Visitor who was also the appointing authority of the First Registrar – Action terminating services of the First Registrar appears to be in consonance with Statute No. 28(1) – Exercise of power by the Visitor appears to be just and proper – Thus the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar of University, cannot be concurred with – Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, the expiry of period of appointment of the First Registrar and the repeated rounds of litigation between the parties, no inclination to interfere with the operative directions issued by the High Court. [Paras 25-29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.