Supreme Court Upholds Visitor’s Power To Take Disciplinary Action Against First Registrar Of Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University
The Court held that transitional appointment under statute carried corresponding power of termination; declined to disturb High Court’s final relief due to peculiar facts.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the Visitor of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University was competent to initiate disciplinary action and terminate the services of the University’s First Registrar, holding that the power to appoint under the transitional provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 also carried the authority to suspend or dismiss.
The Bench clarified that Section 46(b) of the Act, which empowered the Visitor to appoint the First Registrar, had to be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which the authority having power to appoint also possesses the power to terminate unless a contrary intention appears. However, despite disagreeing with the Allahabad High Court’s finding that the Visitor lacked jurisdiction, the Court declined to interfere with the operative relief granted to the First Registrar considering the expiry of his tenure and the prolonged litigation between the parties.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe in appeals filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Union of India, observed, “…the present case stands on a distinct footing, as, we are concerned with the First Registrar and not the Regular Registrar. Section 46(b) and Statute No.28(1) must, therefore, be read in the light of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having power to make appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person so appointed in exercise of that power. Thus, the appointing authority necessarily possesses the power to terminate the services of the employee appointed by it”.
Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G, Sudarshan Lamba, AOR appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates P.S. Patwalia, Anupam Lal Das appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, after the First Registrar, appointed on March 01, 2019 under the transitional provisions of the 2013 Act, was terminated during probation on January 08/09, 2020, the dispute began.
Previously, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench had held the termination order to be stigmatic and remitted the matter to the University for fresh action in accordance with law. Following reinstatement, the Registrar was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry committee found charges including gross insubordination and obstruction of public servants proved, after which the Visitor approved termination of service on April 20, 2022.
A Division Bench of the High Court later quashed the termination order, holding that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had no statutory role in disciplinary proceedings concerning University employees and that the Visitor lacked authority to act against the Registrar. It also granted back wages up to April 2022.
Therefore, setting aside the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the case of the “First Registrar” stood on a distinct footing from a regular Registrar because the appointment was governed by the transitional framework under Section 46 of the Act.
The Bench further noted that the First Registrar had not challenged the Visitor’s authority during the earlier round of litigation when the original termination order was questioned. It held that the termination action was in consonance with the statutory framework governing the University.
“…the exercise of power by the Visitor appears to be just and proper. We are, therefore, unable to concur with the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 22.05.2024 that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar of University”, the Bench further observed.
At the same time, the Court refrained from interfering with the final operative directions issued by the High Court, noting the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case, including the expiry of the Registrar’s three-year tenure and the repeated rounds of litigation between the parties. The appeals were accordingly disposed of without costs.
Cause Title: Vice Chancellor Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 520)
Appearances:
Appellant: Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G., Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Akshay Amritanshu, Shaurya R Rai, Satvika Thakur, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Raghav Sharma, Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Anjana Gosain, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR, Vikas Singh Jangra, Poornima Singh, Narendra Pandey, J Tarun Kumar, Ankit Khatri, Advocates.
Respondents: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Kartikeya Singh, AOR, Akshita Nigam, Kanhaiya Singla, Gayatri Gokula Krishnan, Kaushlendra Dutt Pandey, Anirudh Singh, Advocates.