2025:UHC:1514-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA Writ Petition (S/B) No. 90 of 2020 05 March, 2025 Bhole Shankar --Petitioner Versus Union of India & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. B. D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Sing Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT:(per Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Petitioner was appointed on probation as Assistant Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 10.06.2013. Services of petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.10.2014. Feeling aggrieved by termination of his service, petitioner has approached this Court. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that 12 employees of National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, including petitioner made a complaint to Hon’ble the Prime Minister on 1 2025:UHC:1514-DB 29.10.2014 against the then Director and based on the said complaint, C.B.I inquiry was also ordered, and out of malice, the then Director managed to get the services of petitioner, terminated. 3. It is further contended that as per the Act and statute applicable to the employees of National Institute of Technology, every employee has to be appointed on probation for a period of one year, however, petitioner was deliberately appointed on probation for a period of two years. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contends that Authority Competent to take decision regarding discharge of a probationer from service is the Board of Governors, however, in the present case, decision to discharge petitioner from service was taken by the Chairman, on the request of the then Director and the matter was not considered by the Board of Governors. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the National Institute of Technology submits that meeting of Board of Governors was convened on 04.06.2015 and there were 22 items in the Agenda, including confidential matters and matter of petitioner was placed before the Board of Governors, at item no. 7.22(c) and Board of Governors ratified the decision to discharge petitioner from service taken by the Chairman of the Board. The minutes of the 7th Board of Governors meeting held on 04.06.2015 is Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. 2 2025:UHC:1514-DB 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter of discontinuation of service of petitioner was not considered and discussed by the Board of Governors and the said matter was placed by the Director before the Chairman, Board of Governors, as is revealed from the decision taken by the Chairman, Board of Governors on 12.06.2015. 7. To this, learned counsel appearing for the National Institute of Technology submits that the matter of discontinuation of service of petitioner was not only taken before the Chairman, but it was also considered and discussed by the Board of Governors and based on the resolution passed by the Board of Governors, Chairman granted approval for the decision to terminate service of the petitioner. 8. From reading of the termination order passed against petitioner on 31.10.2014, it is revealed that it is a case of discharge simplicitor, without any stigma. However, petitioner contends that the termination order is motivated as the then Director was upset with him for signing the complaint made to the Hon’ble Prime Minister and with a view to settle personal score with petitioner, he managed to pass termination order and later got the termination order ratified by the Chairman. 9. It is further contended that the Competent Authority to appoint Assistant Registrar is Board of Governors, therefore, the decision to terminate services of an Assistant Registrar can 3 2025:UHC:1514-DB also be taken only by the Board of Governors and not by the Director or Chairman, without approval of the Board of Governors. 10. Since it is submitted that the decision to terminate services of petitioner was never placed before the Board of Governors and without any discussion on the agenda regarding termination of service of petitioner, approval was directly obtained from the Chairman, Board of Governors, therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to the Board of Governors to revisit the order of termination passed against petitioner on 31.10.2014. If the Board of Governors comes to the conclusion that termination order was passed against petitioner, without concurrence of Competent Authority, then necessary order for his reinstatement shall be passed. 11. This Court hopes and expects that necessary decision shall be taken by the Board of Governors, as per Rules, within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.03.2025 05.03.2025 Mamta/Akash 4