IISER crisis ends, HC no to Director’s plea

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 17

The crisis in the Mohali-based premier research and academic institution, the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), ended on Tuesday with the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a petition filed by its Director against its Chairperson over functioning of the institute’s Registrar.

Pronouncing the verdict in an open court, Justice Shekher Dhawan made it clear that the petition was being dismissed both on merit and maintainability. The judgment is in sync with the findings of a committee.

The high-powered committee, set up by the Chairperson after being authorised by the Board of Governors, had come out with its report on all “aspects of the matter related to the suspension of the Registrar”. Placed before the Bench in a sealed cover, it was perused and returned to the counsel for the board.

The Director, in February, had placed under suspension the services of the Registrar, Dr P Bapaiah, as “disciplinary proceeding was contemplated”. The order was stayed on March 22 by the High Court, but the stay was vacated on June 1 with liberty to the appellate authority to decide the Registrar’s “appeal”, following which the Chairperson revoked the suspension. 

The Chairperson then constituted an independent scrutiny committee, which heard the Director and the Registrar before preparing the report. 

The committee was headed by former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Justice SS Sodhi, with Punjab’s former Chief Secretary Rajan Kashyap as vice-chairman and Registrar of an MHRD institute, M Radhakrishnan, as member-secretary. 

Appearing for the Chairperson and the Board of Governors, senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram had said the Director was not authorised by the board to move the HC.  Describing it as a “body corporate”, he asserted the plea was not maintainable unless authorised by the board. He also argued that the filing of the petition on the board’s behalf without a resolution amounted to misconduct. Senior advocate RK Malik, on the other hand, submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that the Chairperson’s order revoking the suspension was to be ratified during the board’s Friday meeting and that the board had empowered the Chairperson to set up an “unbiased committee” to ascertain “if the allegations were right”. But the Chairperson asked the panel to look into myriad aspects, such as powers of the Director, “because she was not interested in finding the truth”.