The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Visitor of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, the President of India, had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and terminate the services of the University’s First Registrar under the transitional provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed the appeals filed by the University and the Union Government against the Allahabad High Court judgment, which had held that the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) and the Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar.
The dispute arose after the respondent, appointed as the “First Registrar” of the University in March 2019 under Section 46(b) of the Act, was terminated during probation in January 2020. His first termination was later held to be stigmatic by the High Court, which directed the University to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Following reinstatement, he was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry committee found charges of indiscipline, gross insubordination, and obstruction of public servants proved against him. The Ministry of Civil Aviation thereafter obtained approval from the Visitor, following which his services were terminated again in April 2022.
The Allahabad High Court later quashed the termination, holding that the Visitor and MoCA lacked jurisdiction because disciplinary control over University employees vested only with the University authorities.
Reversing that finding, the Supreme Court held that the case of the “First Registrar” stood on a distinct footing because Section 46 of the Act contains transitional provisions specifically empowering the Visitor to appoint the First Registrar.
The Court held that once the Visitor possessed the power to appoint the First Registrar, Section 16 of the General Clauses Act automatically conferred upon the appointing authority the power to suspend and dismiss the appointee as well.
“The appointing authority necessarily possesses the power to terminate the services of the employee appointed by it,” the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that the First Registrar’s appointment itself was a temporary transitional arrangement for a period of three years under Section 46(b), and therefore disciplinary action by the Visitor was “in consonance” with Statute 28 governing removal of employees.
However, the Supreme Court declined to disturb the operative relief granted by the High Court in favour of the Registrar, noting the peculiar facts of the case, including the expiry of tenure and repeated rounds of litigation between the parties.
The Court ultimately disposed of the appeals without costs.
Appearances
For Petitioners- Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Shaurya R Rai, Adv. Mr. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pandey, Adv. Mr. J Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sauvik Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Khatri, Adv.
For Respondents- Mr P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Singh, AOR Ms. Akshita Nigam, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gokula Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Kaushlendra Dutt Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv.
