RAMESH CHANDRA TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr Tyagi, a man of high achievement and distinction in physics who worked as a Research Assistant in the University of Hull, England, was awarded Ph. D. in Solid State Physics, was appointed as Assistant Professor of Physics in 1967 in IIT, Delhi, offered Research Associateship in Solid State Physics by NASA, USA and was awarded for research work in developing solid state device technology particularly infrared detectors and epitaxial growth of state semiconductors whose works were patented by (USA) NASA, was offered a supernumerary post in 1971 by government of India and was appointed Temporary Principal Scientific Officer (Gazetted Class-1 subject to approval of Union public service commission. He was regularised in 1972 on the post of Principal Scientific Officer Solid State Physics. Between 1972 to 1976 Dr Tyagi claims to have invented flash evaporation attachment, developed infrared detectors and anti-craft missiles and solar concentrator. In 1978 he was awarded S. S. Bhatnagar Award.

(2.) Success with self-assessment of superiority of learning is not only self-harming but is susceptible of creating unknown irritants. And that probably appears to have happened when the appellant on 29/02/1977 was directed to hand over charge of his activities pertaining to PBS Detectors Development to Dr V. V. Ahashe and those relating to Polymer Project to Dr Prem Swarup and join at Institute of Armament Technology, Pune on a post which presumably carried same salary but which according to Director of the Pune Institute was neither suitable nor proper for the appellant. A researcher, a scholarly man of learning whose scientific acumen could have been ultilised in the discipline for which he was decorated by various awards by different institutions and whose need in public interest was greater at Delhi than Pune was directed to work as Instructor. No sooner the order was passed the appellant approached the High court under Article 226 but withdrew the same due to 42 nd Amendment of the Constitution and approached the civil 'court but when no injunction order was granted and a meeting with the secretary of the Department brightened chances of amicable solution he withdrew the suit and was permitted to remain at Delhi and he was put on deputation for one year and directed to join at IIT, Delhi. Although he joined but was not satisfied and consequently approached the civil court again by way of Suit No. 264 of 1978 seeking declaration that the transfer order was malicious and bad as it was not only motivated but was not passed by the secretary who alone was competent to transfer him. In February 1980 when the appellant's deputation at IIT came to an end, and probably because he once again had approached the court, he was directed to join at Pune "consequent on expiry of his assignment as Visiting Scientist atiit, Delhi, Dr R. C. Tyagi, PSCO may please be directed to report for duty to the Dean and Director, IAT Girinagar, Pune, under intimation to this HQ. "

(3.) From here on started spate of litigations between the department and a the appellant. The one determined to fight for his right and justice and not to succumb to an order passed by a person not authorised in law and the other not willing to continue the appellant in the research wing presumably because of the attitude of the appellant. Be that as it may, what is necessary to be mentioned and is relevant, that the respondents in their written statement in the suit attempted to defend the transfer order by taking up the plea that the order passed by Director General was approved by the competent authority. But when the. appellant challenged it and moved application for summoning the record and the court passed the order as well, the respondents failed to produce it. And the stand during arguments was also not consistent. At one stage it was claimed that all postings and transfers in respect of all gazetted officers (including scientists) used to be ordered by the Chief Controller, Administration and in case of the appellant it was ordered by the Chief Controller and issued by the then Director. Later on the teamed counsel relied on delegation of power which shall be adverted to later. Such inconsistent stands unsubstantiated by record cannot be appreciated. However in the meantime the department started disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for not complying with the order passed in 1980 directing the appellant to join at Pune. These proceedings came to an end ex parte in 1981 and the appellant was dismissed from service.