High court slams ‘tearing emergency’ in IIM Rohtak director’s inquiry proceedings
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today said the tearing “emergency” to initiate proceedings against IIM Rohtak Director Dr Dheeraj Sharma was an attempt to “overreach the process of law”. The assertion came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj’s bench ruled that the final outcome of inquiry proceedings would not be given effect to till the next date of hearing.
The bench was hearing of a stay application filed in the pending writ petition by Dr Sharma through senior advocate Chetan Mittal against the inquiry proceedings. The bench, during the hearing, described as “misconceived” the contention of Additional Solicitor-General of India that the grant of an interim order would amount to allowing the writ petition.
The court asserted that the interim prayer did not, in any manner, amount to allowing the writ petition. It merely deferred the final outcome of the inquiry proceedings that might be initiated. The petition, on the contrary, might be rendered infructuous if the interim protection was not extended at the current stage.
Justice Bhardwaj added: “The court also feels that once an expedited schedule for hearing and the completion of pleadings has already been brought to the notice of respective authorities, and an interim order had been passed against the respondents, there was no terming emergency for initiating the proceedings at this stage when the same were being kept dormant for more than a month”.
Justice Bhardwaj added proceedings were initiated prior to April 9 and could not have caused irreparable loss in case it was deferred till the final hearing of the matter on April 22. “Apparently, the respondents have taken this step after being conscious that the high court would be closed for ten days. This court finds that such an approach is an attempt to overreach the process of law. Consequently, an interim order is passed to the extent that the inquiry officer — Director (Professor Manoj Tiwari) may continue with the inquiry in terms of the orders passed by the Visitor, however, the final outcome of the said inquiry proceedings shall not be given effect to till the next date of hearing,” the court concluded.
