Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Argument is that impugned order of removal besides being illegal is without any proper opportunity in respect to the inquiry and other matters as has been stated in the writ petition. It is further submitted that it is at the dictate of the concerned Minister which is clear from his opinion dated 30.3.2009 and at the same time submission is that Public Service Commission has not applied its mind for being satisfied with the proposed punishment for the simple reason that various documents called by the commission by letter dated 4.12.2009 were never submitted/sent as is clear from the reply given to the petitioner under R.T.I. Act ( page 241 of the writ petition) and thus on these facts submission is that entire exercise is totally illegal besides being malafide and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice.
Submission is that earlier when petitioner was placed under suspension an interim stay was given.
Lastly it is submitted that report which has been made basis was also the basis for taking action against the then Vice Chancellor of the concerned university but the final decision in his respect was finally quashed by this court and thus on these facts petitioner is entitled to get interim protection.
Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Additional Advocate General submits that besides legal aspect certain aspects as has been submitted by the petitioner relating to placement of record before the Commission and the factum of opportunity can be a matter of production of record and thus he may be granted a reasonable time to place the documents and the record in this respect, if so required and it is thereafter it is for the court to consider the question of stay of the impugned order.
As requested by Sri Hasnain let the matter be placed as fresh before the appropriate Court/Bench on 6th July, 2010.
It is made clear that as submitted by Sri Hasnain question of grant of stay may be considered by the court on that date.
Order Date :- 28.6.2010 M.A.A.