AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
This writ petition assails the following order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 on 13 October 2026:
“The matter is listed today for consideration of the applicant's prayer for grant of interim relief.
2.Despite opportunities, the respondents have not filed any short reply. None appears for respondent No. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant presses for grant of interim relief.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, by referring to the assertions made in the O.A., submits that the applicant, while working as an Associate Professor of General Medicine under respondent Nos. 1 to 3, applied for the post of Professor of Medicine under respondent No. 4 through proper channel. Upon being selected by respondent No. 4 in accordance with the relevant rules on the subject, respondent No. 4 issued an offer of appointment to the post of Professor of Medicine on 07.07.2026 (page 134, Annexure A-10).
4.The applicant, on 07.07.2026 itself, requested respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to relieve him in order to enable him to join the services of respondent No. 4 on the post for which he had been selected and for which an offer of appointment had been issued. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not relieve the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant requested respondent No. 4 to extend the time for joining the post.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned memorandum dated 08.09.2026 (page 55 of the paper book), whereby it has been proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023.
6.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations contained in the impugned memorandum are vague and factually incorrect inasmuch as the allegations relate to the discharge of a patient from the ICU. The applicant submits that the ICU was never under his charge. The applicant was having administrative control over only 15 beds, whereas the charge of the remaining 34 beds was with Dr. P.K. Verma.
7.As an interim measure, the applicant has prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provisionally accept his technical resignation and relieve him at the earliest, preferably within one week, to enable him to join the post of Professor of Medicine for which an offer of appointment has already been issued by respondent No. 4.
8.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has a prima facie case in his favour and that the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. It is further submitted that, if the interim relief sought is not granted, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss, inasmuch as he would be deprived of joining a higher post for which he has been selected by respondent No. 4. On the other hand, the respondents are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss or hardship if the interim relief is granted, as the applicant would be under the disciplinary control of respondent No. 4. The applicant is otherwise ready to face the consequences arising out of the impugned charge memorandum in accordance with law.
9.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, under instructions, vehemently opposes the applicant's prayer for grant of interim relief. She submits that granting the interim relief sought would tantamount to granting the final relief, inasmuch as the applicant has substantially prayed for a direction to the respondents to accept the technical resignation and relieve him forthwith to enable him to join the post of Professor of General Medicine at AIIMS-CAPFIMS, New Delhi, under respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the NOC was issued to the applicant when the situation was different, inasmuch as the Clinical Audit Committee was constituted subsequent thereto.
10.In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant invites our attention to page 98 of the paper book, containing the report of the Clinical Audit Committee, and submits that the said Committee has not recorded any adverse findings against the applicant.
11.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, in identical facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, allowed O.A. No. 4909 of 2024, titled DR. MANAS KARMAKAR Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC), wherein ESIC was also a respondent. The Tribunal, in the said matter, vide order dated 24.12.2024, directed respondent No. 2, i.e. ESIC, to accept the technical resignation of the applicant therein within one week, subject to the final outcome of the O.A. Pursuant to the said interim order, the technical resignation of the applicant therein was accepted, and he joined the services.
12.We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From the facts recorded hereinabove, it is evident that, on the relevant date when the respondents issued the No Objection Certificate permitting the applicant to participate in the selection process for the post of Professor of General Medicine under respondent No. 4, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant. Even on the date when the offer of appointment was issued, no charge memorandum had been issued to the applicant.
13.Furthermore, in respect of the same respondent, this Tribunal passed an interim order in O.A. No. 4909 of 2024, which was complied with by the respondents, and the said O.A. was ultimately allowed vide order dated 03.09.2025.
14.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as an interim measure, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to provisionally accept the technical resignation of the applicant from the post of Associate Professor and relieve him from the said post as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week from today.
15.Upon being so relieved, respondent No. 4 shall permit the applicant to join the post of Professor of General Medicine in accordance with its own rules and instructions.
16.The respondents may file their reply within three weeks. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
17.List the matter on 26.11.2026.
18.At the request of learned counsel for the parties, Order DASTI.”
Mr. Siddharth, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has effectively granted the final relief in the OA at the interim stage and also submits that there are disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent, pertaining to charges which, according to him, are serious.
The impugned order is purely interim in nature. It clearly states that the release of the respondent and acceptance of his technical resignation would be provisional. This provisionality would also apply to the joining of the respondent as Professor in the General Medicine in AIIMS-CAPFIMS.
We clarify this position.
Beyond this, we are not inclined to interfere, as the impugned order is purely interlocutory and discretionary in nature.
We also note that the OA itself is listed before the Tribunal on 26 November 2026. As the case deals with the appointment of a post of Professor of General Medicine, acceptance of his technical resignation and his joining as Professor in the AIIMS-CAPFIMS, it cannot brook any delay.
We, therefore, request the Tribunal on 26 November 2026 to hear arguments in the OA itself and to take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible thereafter.
Neither side would be entitled to take an adjournment from the Tribunal on 26 November 2026.
We direct the petitioner to file a reply to the OA positively within ten days from today before the Tribunal with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the respondent, who may file rejoinder thereto so as to be on record before the Tribunal on or before 24 November 2026.
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any of the issues in controversy.
Footnotes
- 1.“the Tribunal” hereinafter