Tapabrata Chakraborty J. - (1.) Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (hereinafter referred to as the said Institute) has come up in appeal challenging an order dated 27th April, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 12988 (W) of 2007 which was preferred by the writ petitioner being the respondent no.1 herein, inter alia, praying for "judicial review of the acts and conducts of the respondents relating to delayed promotion, denial of research facilities, disciplinary proceedings against him".
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that a charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner on 30th August, 2015 alleging violation of clauses 4.5, 4.5.2 and 4.6.7 of the bye-laws of the said Institute. Before conclusion of the same the writ petition was preferred and during pendency of the same the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2010. Subsequent thereto, the final order was passed in the disciplinary proceeding on 16th June, 2011 imposing a penalty of deduction of an amount of 10% for a period of five years from the pension of the writ petitioner on and from the month of July, 2011. In the midst thereof, the writ petitioner filed W.P. 7504 (W) of 2010 seeking a direction upon the Institute towards extension of service within the meaning of clause 4.3.1 of the said bye-laws which was ultimately withdrawn by the writ petitioner on 13th February, 2015. In W.P. 12988 (W) of 2007 the writ petitioner filed several applications from time to time. One amongst the said applications, being CAN 9509 of 2013, was filed on 10th September, 2013, inter alia, praying for inclusion of a ground to the effect that "the bye-laws of the said Institute, relating to the recruitment, promotion, disciplinary and management rules were unenforceable and all actions taken against the charged officer are to be declared to be void and are not entitled to be further effect to any decision arrived if any against the petitioner". The said application for amendment was allowed by an order dated 25th January, 2016 and the writ petition was disposed thereafter on 27th April, 2016 quashing the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner as having been initiated under the byelaws which were not duly approved by the Central Government.
(3.) Mr. Mantha, learned advocate appearing for the said Institute submits that the Chairman of the Governing Council of the said Institute is the ex officio Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India and the Governing Council of the said Institute under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India has duly approved the said bye-laws and as such it needs to be construed that the said bye-laws had the deemed approval of the Central Government. Had there been no such approval the Central Government would not have disbursed grants in favour of the said Institute. Lack of formal approval can at best be an irregularity but not an illegality.;