KANISHKA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Kanishka Das seeks to challenge the order dtd. 12/3/2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No.129 of 2021 under Annexure-10 whereby the learned Tribunal while declining to interfere with the show-cause notice dtd. 4/2/2021, observed that the authorities considering the relevancy and necessity of the documents sought for by the petitioner in Annexure-A/12, may supply the same to him as per Rules/law. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the show-cause notice dtd. 4/2/2021 issued by the opposite party no.2 as well as the Fact Finding Committee (for short, 'the F.F.C.') report dtd. 23/9/2020 under Annexure-9 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter 'CCS (CC and A) Rules').

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner, who is working as Professor in the Department of Paediatrics Surgery in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, joined as Professor in the said Department in March 2018. After his joining, the petitioner along with other members of the Department, began to organize the academic activities and patient care protocols, whereby a schedule was finalized and responsibilities were divided among the members of the Department, but one Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty, who is one of the members of the Department, insisted on two separate units from the very day of his joining and because of such misunderstanding, there was hitch between the petitioner and Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty, but during the early December 2018, the said Department was divided into two units. The petitioner vide his e-mail dtd. 5/12/2018 under Annexure-3 series had cautioned the administration that such division of the Department would lead to fragmented protocols and confusion in training of the students, which would adversely impact patient care and ultimately the reputation of the institute. After the bifurcation of the unit, the petitioner as the Head of the Department continued to take clinical and teaching rounds, but the patient care appeared to be grossly inappropriate/non-standard/dangerous. According to the petitioner, at the instance of Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty, complaints were lodged before the administration by the patient attendants. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.2 issued order dtd. 15/5/2020 (Annexure-8) wherein out of the two bifurcated units of the Department of Paediatrics Surgery, one unit was headed by the petitioner and another unit was headed by Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty and both the incumbents were directed to report independently to the Director for all administrative and academic matters of their respective units in place of the petitioner as the Head of the Department. Challenging such bifurcation, the petitioner moved the Tribunal in O.A. No. 451 of 2020, which is still subjudice.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice, the opposite parties nos.1 to 3 have filed preliminary counter affidavit stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law on the ground that the same has been filed basing on the misrepresentation of facts without any substantive grounds or point of law entitling the petitioner to get the relief. While denying the averments made by the petitioner regarding the e-mail communications vide Annexures-1 to 5, it is stated that those communications were relating to internal administration and day-to-day activities of the department and the same were no way related to the issues involved in the writ petition. It is further stated that vide office order dtd. 5/11/2018 issued by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, two other departments, namely, Department of ENT and Department of Neurosurgery were also bifurcated into two units along with Department of Paediatrics Surgery. The allegation of the petitioner regarding the conscious effort by the administration and Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty (Head Unit-II of the Department) to isolate him from the entire department by spreading false rumours and fabricated stories were also denied. It is stated that since the petitioner had raised question with regard to the validity of the appointment of Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty as Additional Professor in the Department of Paediatrics Surgery, but he has not impleaded Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty as a party to the proceeding, thus, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same. It is also stated that the appointment of Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty was made with due adherence to the Recruitment Rules prescribing qualification and teaching experience for Faculty Posts and Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty was declared provisionally eligible basing on the teaching experience certificate submitted by him in the Faculty Recruitment of 2015 at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It is further stated that the Standing Selection Committee, as had been constituted by the then Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, being the then President of the Institute, verified the Teaching Experience Certificate and recommended Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty as eligible to be appointed as Additional Professor in Department of Paediatrics Surgery. It is also stated that such appointment of Dr. Manoj K. Mohanty as Additional Professor of the Department of Paediatrics Surgery at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has been challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) (PIL) No.16885 of 2021 as well as before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 451 of 2020, which are pending for adjudication. It is further stated that keeping in view Regulation 11 of AIIMS Regulations, 1999, the Director, opposite party no.2 has the power to bifurcate the Department of Paediatrics Surgery for better and smooth administration of the Department.