The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the Director of AIIMS lacks jurisdiction to displace the senior-most Professor from the charge of Head of Department through a "working arrangement," especially when the complaint triggering such action has been examined and closed by multiple internal forums. The Tribunal quashed the impugned memorandum and communications, directing restoration of the applicant as HoD within two weeks, affirming that the seniority norm established by the Governing Body binds the Director and cannot be overridden under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dr. Akshya Kumar Bisoi, a Professor in the Department of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery (CTVS) at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, was appointed as Head of Department (HoD) vide Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2024 with effect from 04.05.2024, upon the superannuation of the previous HoD, Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary. The applicant, being the senior-most Professor in the department, assumed the charge in accordance with the long-standing norm that the senior-most faculty member holds the HoD position. On 11.10.2025, the Director of AIIMS issued a memorandum assigning the HoD charge to Dr. V. Devagourou, a Professor junior to the applicant, based on a complaint dated 30.09.2025 from a nursing officer and representations from the AIIMS Nurses Union. The applicant challenged this displacement before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Key Facts
- The applicant joined AIIMS as M.Ch. Senior Resident on 16.07.1994, was appointed Assistant Professor on 01.09.1997, promoted to Associate Professor on 01.07.2004, Additional Professor on 23.09.2005, and Professor on 01.07.2010.
- Upon superannuation of Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary on 04.05.2024, the applicant became the senior-most Professor in CTVS.
- 18.04.2024: Office Memorandum issued appointing applicant as HoD, CTVS w.e.f. 04.05.2024, as an additional assignment without remuneration.
- 30.09.2025: Complaint received from a female Nursing Officer; AIIMS Nurses Union submitted representations on 30.09.2025, 04.10.2025, and 07.10.2025.
- 09.10.2025: Chief, C.T. Centre recorded findings that allegations were not confirmed by those present and applicant could not be divested of administrative responsibilities.
- 11.10.2025: Impugned Memorandum issued assigning HoD charge to Dr. V. Devagourou with immediate effect till further orders.
- 11.10.2025 to 26.11.2025: Applicant on earned leave.
- 23/24.10.2025: Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report held remarks did not amount to sexual harassment, recommended no penalty, and recorded no reporting relationship between complainant and applicant.
- 25.11.2025: Internal Grievance Redressal Committee for SC/ST/OBC Employees found no caste-based abuse or discrimination.
- 22.05.2026 and 25.05.2026: National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) withdrew earlier recommendation and closed the matter.
- 27.11.2025: Applicant rejoined; impugned communications dated 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 conveyed continuation of arrangement and directed applicant not to use HoD designation.
- 31.12.2025, 23.02.2026, 15.04.2026: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare forwarded applicant's representations for restoration.
- 03.06.2026: Applicant's representation (Annexure A-46) submitted; reminder on 09.09.2026.
Procedural History
- 14.10.2026: OA No. 4025/2026 placed for admission; Tribunal issued short notice, observed substantial merit, directed respondents to decide applicant's representation within three weeks.
- 27.10.2026: Matter adjourned to 30.10.2026 at respondent's request; representation to be decided within two days.
- 29.10.2026: Speaking order (Ref. No. I/3036834/2026) disposed of representation, regretting it on ground of pendency of WP(C) No. 8828/2026 filed by nursing officer; matter to be reviewed within two weeks of High Court decision or three months.
- 30.09.2026: Delhi High Court order in WP(C) No. 8828/2026 observed pendency of petition (notice not yet issued) could not be used in other forums.
- 30.10.2026: Matter reserved.
- 05.11.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (i) quashing of the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025; (ii) quashing of communications dated 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025; (iii) direction to AIIMS not to interfere with his functioning as HoD pursuant to OM dated 18.04.2024 till superannuation.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Director of AIIMS, under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, has the power to displace the senior-most Professor from the charge of HoD by way of a "working arrangement" contrary to the norm established by the Governing Body; (2) Whether a complaint examined and closed by multiple forums - the Chief, C.T. Centre, the ICC, the SC/ST/OBC Committee, and the NCST - with no finding of misconduct, can sustain the displacement; (3) Whether the mere pendency of a writ petition (where notice has not been issued) filed by the complainant can justify continuing the arrangement.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate, contended that the impugned memorandum is ex facie mala fide, without jurisdiction, and void ab initio. He submitted: (i) The Director lacks power to create a "working arrangement" displacing the senior-most faculty member as HoD; any such decision is illegal and non est. (ii) The Director is bound by norms and policy decisions of the Governing Body and Institute Body; allocation of HoD charge contrary thereto is ultra vires and arbitrary. (iii) The status of HoD vests in the senior-most Professor per Governing Body decisions in its 137th meeting (24.01.2007) and 140th meeting (20.12.2007). (iv) The appointing and disciplinary authority for Group 'A' faculty is the Governing Body under Regulation 33 read with Schedule II of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, not the Director. (v) The Memorandum dated 19.12.1989 only provides for the next senior-most faculty to officiate during absence of HoD on leave or tour, which ended upon applicant's rejoining on 27.11.2025. (vi) Under Section 12 of the POSH Act, 2013, power to recommend interim measures vests solely in the ICC, not the Director; once the ICC found no sexual harassment, the foundation of the memorandum collapsed. Reliance was placed on Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142, Dr. Akshya Bisoi v. AIIMS & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 391, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Ors., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 509, and Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende v. AIIMS & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5381.
For the Respondents
Mr. Kaushal Gautam submitted: (i) The HoD is not a separate post but an administrative charge held in addition to substantive duties without remuneration; the working arrangement causes no loss of rank, pay, or seniority. (ii) Under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, the Director is in charge of administration and allocates duties to officers and employees; the seniority norm does not take away this power to make a temporary arrangement for a stated reason, limited period, and subject to review. (iii) There is a working interface between the office of HoD, CTVS and the complainant's work; the complainant sought protection from retaliation before the High Court, and judicial propriety calls for restraint. (iv) Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende concerned inter se seniority and is distinguishable. (v) The Memorandum dated 19.12.1989 has no application. The speaking order dated 29.10.2026 was supported as a reasoned decision.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the statutory framework and institutional practice governing HoD appointments at AIIMS. Section 10(2) of the AIIMS Act, 1956 designates the Governing Body as the executive committee. Regulation 33 read with Schedule II of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019 vests the Governing Body as the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group 'A' posts. Regulation 11(a) empowers the Director to allocate duties but expressly subjects this power to "the rules and these regulations."
The Tribunal found decisive the minutes of the 137th and 140th Governing Body meetings. In the 137th meeting (24.01.2007), the Governing Body decided the senior-most faculty member may act as HoD. In the 140th meeting (20.12.2007), the Governing Body set aside the Director's action displacing Dr. A. Sampath Kumar (senior-most Professor) as HoD, CTVS, directing restoration of status quo ante. The agenda note specifically referenced Regulation 11 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999 (analogous to present Regulation 11), yet the Governing Body held the Director bound to recognise the senior-most faculty member as HoD.
"The Director does not have any power or authority to designate any person other than the senior-most faculty member as HoD of a Department."
The Supreme Court in Dr. Akshya Bisoi (2018) 3 SCC 391 recognised and reiterated that the senior-most member of CTVS would be designated as and assume charge of HoD. The Delhi High Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (2007 SCC OnLine Del 509) took judicial note of the norm, observing that blocking the senior-most Professor from acting as HoD causes "frustration in the concerned Department" and "great administrative hindrances." In Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5381), another Division Bench rejected AIIMS's reliance on Regulation 11 to appoint a junior Professor as HoD, directing restoration based on seniority.
The Tribunal noted the speaking order dated 29.10.2026 itself admitted: the Chief, C.T. Centre did not confirm allegations; the ICC found no sexual harassment and recommended no penalty; the SC/ST/OBC Committee found no caste-based abuse; the NCST closed its case; no disciplinary proceeding is pending; the working arrangement is not founded on any finding of misconduct and is not a penalty; there is no reporting relationship between applicant and complainant; the Union's reports were second-hand, uninquired, and no finding recorded on them. The "working interface" relied upon was a single meeting on 29.09.2025 on patient transfer, which the ICC's accepted finding of no reporting relationship contradicted.
Regarding the pendency of WP(C) No. 8828/2026, the Tribunal observed the Delhi High Court's order dated 30.09.2026 explicitly stated: "Undisputedly, the notice is yet to be issued in the present petition and the matter has been pending for arguments on maintainability... there is no likelihood of the pendency of the present petition being used in any other forum." Respondent No. 1's own stand before the High Court was that no appeal lies under Section 18(1) of the POSH Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. Having taken that stand, the respondent could not treat the mere pendency as a reason to continue the arrangement. The Tribunal found it "surprising" that the speaking order concealed the High Court's order, which was the duty of both the respondent and its counsel to place on record.
The Verdict
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application. It held: (i) The Director had no jurisdiction to deprive the applicant of the charge and status of HoD, which flows from his position as senior-most Professor under the norm laid down and enforced by the Governing Body; the power under Regulation 11(a) is subject to rules and regulations and cannot override that norm - any departure lies solely with the Governing Body. (ii) The complaint having been examined and closed by all forums with no finding of misconduct, the HoD position cannot be withheld. (iii) The pendency of WP(C) No. 8828/2026 is no ground to continue the arrangement. Operative directions: (a) The impugned Memorandum dated 11.10.2025 and communications dated 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 are quashed and set aside. (b) Respondents are directed to restore the applicant as HoD, CTVS, AIIMS by giving him the charge of HoD within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Director's Administrative Power Cannot Override Statutory Norms
The judgment reinforces that the Director's power to allocate duties under Regulation 11(a) is not unfettered. It is expressly subject to the rules, regulations, and policy decisions of the Governing Body. Where the Governing Body has repeatedly affirmed - and the Supreme Court and High Courts have endorsed - that the senior-most Professor holds the HoD charge, the Director cannot circumvent this through a "working arrangement" labelled as temporary. Practitioners should cite this judgment when challenging administrative orders that displace statutory or norm-based entitlements under the guise of administrative convenience.
Unsubstantiated Complaints Cannot Sustain Adverse Administrative Action
The Tribunal's reasoning establishes that when multiple designated forums (ICC, SC/ST Committee, NCST, Chief of Centre) examine a complaint and find no misconduct - with the employer itself accepting these findings - the complaint ceases to be a legally sustainable basis for continuing an adverse arrangement. The "working arrangement" here was acknowledged as not a penalty and not founded on any finding. Practitioners should argue that once the factual foundation collapses, the superstructure must fall; unverified, second-hand reports on which no finding is recorded cannot justify prolonged deprivation of a norm-based entitlement.
Pendency of Proceedings (Without Notice) Is Not A Shield For Inaction
The judgment delivers a clear message: the mere filing of a writ petition, where notice has not even been issued and the respondent itself contests maintainability, cannot be invoked to justify continuing an illegal arrangement. The Delhi High Court's observation that there is "no likelihood of the pendency... being used in any other forum" binds the parties. Practitioners should ensure that courts' observations on pendency are placed on record before tribunals and that respondents cannot take inconsistent stands across forums. The Tribunal's criticism of the concealment of the High Court order underscores the duty of candour.
