K VINODHAR Vs. EXECUTIVE BOARD OF NIZAMS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES APPELLATE AUTHORITY NIMS PANJAGUTTA HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been functioning as Deputy Registrar (MRD) in the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, the 3rd respondent. A charge memo dt. 16-11 -2001 was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Director of the Institute, framing a charge against the petitioner. He submitted his explanation dated 15-12-2001. In accordance with the NIMS Employees Conduct and Appeal Rules (for short 'the Rules'), an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, submitted his report. The charge against the petitioner was held proved. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 9-5-2002. On consideration of the explanation dated 23-5-2002 submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 12-6-2002, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 12-6-2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Executive Board of the Institute, i.e., the 1st respondent herein, under Rule 15 of the Rules. At its meeting held on 5-11-2002, the 1st respondent is said to have directed a comprehensive enquiry by two senior Officers, about the irregularities which are said to have been resorted to by the petitioner, for several years. Acting on the said decision of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, issued proceedings dated 19-11-2002, constituting a Committee comprising of respondents 4 and 5. The Committee so constituted was requested to study and submit a detailed enquiry report to the 2nd respondent, within 6 weeks from the date of appointment.

(3.) Respondents 4 and 5, issued a notice dated 26-12-2003, directing the petitioner to attend an enquiry on 31-12-2002 and to respond to the four charges mentioned in the notice. The petitioner challenges this notice as well as the steps taken against him, through proceedings dated 19-11-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent. His contention is that once he had been compulsorily retired from service through orders dated 12-6-2002, the relationship of employer and employee between the 3rd respondent and himself ceased to exist, and the impugned proceedings are unsustainable. He further contends that neither the appellate authority can direct fresh enquiry without setting aside the order under appeal, nor the 2nd respondent had any valid basis to issue proceedings dated 19-11-2002.