Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/228/2023 on 8 June, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
08.06.2023 WPSB No. 226 of 2023
WPSB No. 228 of 2023
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay and Mr. Bhupesh
Kandpal, learned counsels for the G.B. Pant Institute of
Engineering and Technology.
4. These two Writ Petitions have been preferred by
the petitioners - Dr. Anil Kumar Gautam & Dr. Yashvir
Singh, assailing the Office Memorandum dated
27.05.2023, passed by the Vice Chairman, Board of
Governors, G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Pauri Garhwal, whereby Shri Anil Kumar
Gautam has been attached with Nanhi Pari Seemant
Engineering Institute, Pithoragarh, and Dr. Yashvir
Singh has been attached to Bipin Tripathi Kumaon
Engineering Institute, Dwarahat, District Almora.
5. The impugned order is detailed, and contains the
background, in which the said order has been issued.
A reading of the same shows that one Smt. Manisha
Bhatt, Assistant Professor, GBPIET, Ghurdauri, Pauri
Garhwal committed suicide, allegedly due to the
harassment meted out to her by the two petitioners
herein. In respect of the said incident, one FIR, bearing
No. 0020 of 2023 dated 26.05.2023, stands registered
at P.S. Kotwali, Pauri under Section 306 IPC, wherein
the two petitioners herein have been named as the
accused persons.
6. The allegations in the FIR are, inter alia, to the
effect that the said Smt. Manisha Bhatt was denied
maternity leave by the petitioners, even though she
was pregnant, and entitled to avail of such leave. The
allegation also was that both the petitioners had
threatened her that they will ruin her career. There
were other allegations made against one of the two
petitioners, namely Dr. Anil Kumar Gautam, about his
past conduct in relation to other females he had
interacted with in his official capacity.
7. The submission of Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Office
Memorandum/ Order is illegal. He places reliance on
the judgment of this Court in Sandeep Kumar v.
State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2021 SCC
OnLine UTT 1633, wherein a similar order of
attachment was quashed by the Court.
8. We have perused the said judgment. The said
judgment has interpreted Rule 32 of the Memorandum
of Association of the Govind Ballabh Pant Engineering
College, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal, and concluded that,
in the facts of that case, it could not be said that it was
an emergent situation, which justified the action taken
by the Chairman, of posting the writ petitioner in that
case with the Nanhi Pari Simant Engineering College,
Pithoragarh.
9. In our view, the same cannot be said in the facts
of the present case, for the reason that on 25.05.2023,
Smt. Manisha Bhatt committed suicide. The FIR was
registered on the following day, i.e. 26.05.2023, and
the impugned Office Memorandum/ Order has been
issued on the very next day, i.e. 27.05.2023. The
incident is fresh; the FIR has been registered without
any delay, and; the said FIR is under investigation.
The two petitioners are senior functionaries, and are in
a position to tamper with the evidence, and stultify the
ongoing investigation in the case registered against
them. It is, therefore, absolutely essential and
emergent to ensure that they are removed from the
place of authority, where they are alleged to have
conducted themselves criminally.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
these Writ Petitions. The same are, accordingly,
dismissed.
11. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
08.06.2023 08.06.2023
Rahul
