DR AKSHYA KUMAR BISOI vs AIIMS on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman

​ By filing the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(i) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the Memorandum dt. 11.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (ANNEXURE A1);

(ii) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the communication dt. 28.11.2025 (ANNEXURE A2) issued by the Respondent No. 1 through its Administrative Officer;

(iii) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the e-Office communication dt. 29.11.2025 (ANNEXURE A3) issued by the Respondent No. 1 through its Chief of C.T. Centre;

(iv) Issue an order directing the Respondent No. 1 AIIMS not to interfere and / or cause any impediment of any kind in the Applicant continuing to act / function and discharge responsibilities as the HoD of CTVS Department of AIIMS pursuant to the O.M. dt. 18.04.2024 till his superannuation;”

2. ​ By the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025, respondent No. 1, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS), assigned the charge of Head of the Department(HoD) of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery (CTVS) to Dr. V. Devagourou, Professor of CTVS, with immediate effect till further orders. By the communication dated 28.11.2025, the Chief, C.T. Centre was asked to ensure strict adherence to the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025 in letter and spirit and to obtain the applicant’s explanation for using the designation “Head, Department of CTVS”; and by the e-Office communication dated 29.11.2025, the Chief, C.T. Centre requested the applicant not to use the designation of HoD, CTVS till further orders from the competent authority.

3. ​ The brief facts giving rise to the present OA are as follows: ​ The applicant joined the Department of CTVS of AIIMS as M.Ch. Senior Resident on 16.07.1994. He was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of CTVS on 01.09.1997, and was thereafter promoted as Associate Professor on 01.07.2004, as Additional Professor on 23.09.2005 and as Professor on 01.07.2010. On 04.05.2024, upon the superannuation of the previous senior-most Professor and HoD, Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary, the applicant became the senior-most Professor in the Department of CTVS. As per the prevalent norms, AIIMS issued the requisite Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2024 for the applicant to be the HoD of the Department of CTVS with effect from 04.05.2024. Along with the designation of HoD, the applicant was also vested with the privileges, functions and responsibilities of HoD, and he had been discharging the said responsibilities and functions since 04.05.2024. The AIIMS administration thereafter issued the impugned Memorandum dated 11.10.2025, whereby another faculty member, admittedly junior to the applicant, has been asked to act as HoD of the Department of CTVS till further orders. This Memorandum was issued in view of the complaint dated 30.09.2025 received from a female Nursing Officer against the applicant and the representations in that regard of the

AIIMS Nurses Union dated 30.09.2025, 04.10.2025 and 07.10.2025. The applicant was on earned leave from 11.10.2025 to 26.11.2025. On his rejoining on 27.11.2025, the impugned communications dated 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 were issued, conveying that the arrangement of 11.10.2025 continued and that he should not use the designation of HoD, CTVS.

4. ​ It is the specific case of the applicant that the said complaint was initially examined by the Chief, C.T. Centre, AIIMS, who, by communication dated 09.10.2025, recorded his findings in the matter, namely, that the allegations were not confirmed by those present at the meeting and that the applicant could not be divested of his administrative responsibilities as HoD on that account. The complaint was thereafter examined by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which submitted its report dated 23/24.10.2025, holding that the remarks attributed to the applicant did not amount to sexual harassment and recording that the complainant did not have any reporting relationship with the applicant. It is also the case of the applicant that the said complaint was later examined by the Internal Grievance Redressal Committee for SC/ST/OBC Employees of AIIMS, which, in its proceedings dated 25.11.2025, did not find any caste-based abuse or discrimination. Thereafter, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), by its communications dated 22.05.2026 and 25.05.2026, withdrew its earlier recommendation and informed the Institute that the matter stood closed. In the above facts, since the authorities and committees mentioned hereinabove did not find against the applicant, he made various representations for restoration of his position as HoD of the Department of CTVS, which were also forwarded to the Institute by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on 31.12.2025, 23.02.2026 and 15.04.2026. However, his representations were not decided and, therefore, the applicant approached this Tribunal for the reliefs stated hereinabove.

5. ​ Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned communication dated 11.10.2025 is ex facie mala fide, completely without jurisdiction and void ab initio, inter alia, for the reason that it is based solely upon a purported complaint dated 30.09.2025 from a nursing officer described as being of the Department of CTVS, and the representations received from the AIIMS Nurses Union dated 30.09.2025, 04.10.2025 and 07.10.2025. He submitted that the nursing officer in question is not working in the Department of CTVS, of which the applicant had been notified as HoD vide OM dated 18.04.2024, and, therefore, she was not working under the applicant. He submitted that the so-called complaint dated 30.09.2025 already stood closed by the Chief, C.T. Centre and by the ICC, vide their reasoned report/decision dated 09.10.2025 and 23/24.10.2025 respectively. He submitted that the impugned actions are non est, illegal and void ab initio for the following reasons:

(i) ​ The Director of the Institute does not have any power, jurisdiction or authority to create a “working arrangement” in a

Department whereby any person other than the senior-most faculty member of the Department is permitted to act as its HoD. Any decision of the Director in this behalf is illegal, non est and void ab initio.

(ii) ​ The Director, being in charge of the administration of the Institute, is duty-bound to ensure that the allocation of duties is strictly in terms of the applicable norms and policy decisions laid down by the Governing Body and the Institute Body of AIIMS. Any allocation or assignment of duties, including the charge of HoD, made contrary thereto is ultra vires, arbitrary and non est.

(iii) ​ The status/position, functioning and discharge of responsibilities of the HoD of any Department at AIIMS, as per the applicable norms and policy decisions, is vested in the senior-most Professor of the concerned Department.

(iv) ​ He relies upon the decisions of the Governing Body of AIIMS taken in its 137th meeting held on 24.01.2007 and its 140th meeting held on 20.12.2007 wherein it was reiterated that only the senior-most faculty member of a Department can be designated as HoD.

6. ​ Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appointing and disciplinary authority of the applicant, a Group ‘A’ faculty member, is the Governing Body under Regulation 33 read with Schedule II of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, and not the Director. He further submitted that the Memorandum dated 19.12.1989 only provides for the next senior-most faculty member to officiate during the absence of the HoD on leave or tour, and any such arrangement came to an end when the applicant rejoined on 27.11.2025. While relying upon the decision in Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142, learned senior counsel further submitted that the power to recommend interim measures during the pendency of an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 vests in the ICC under Section 12 of that Act and not in any other authority, and that once the very foundation of the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025 has fallen, the superstructure built upon it cannot survive.

7. ​ Mr. Maninder Singh relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Akshya Bisoi v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 391, the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Ors., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 509, and another judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende v. AIIMS & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5381.

8. ​ The OA was placed for admission before us on 14.10.2026. By a speaking order passed on the same date, we issued short notice to the respondents, which was accepted by Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Ms. Neha Bairagee, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2. Having noticed that the complainant did not have any reporting relationship with the applicant and that the complaint had not been found to

disclose sexual harassment or caste-based abuse, we found substantial merit in the matter.

9. ​ We also observed that, having regard to the subject matter and the discussion in that order, we intend to dispose of the OA finally at the admission stage. We also directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure A-46) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks, and adjourned the matter to 27.10.2026. On 27.10.2026, the matter was adjourned to 30.10.2026 at the request of Mr. Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the ground that the representation would be decided within two days by a reasoned and speaking order. We also made it clear that the speaking order passed on the applicant’s representation would be subject to the final outcome of the OA.

10. ​On 30.10.2026, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, placed before us the speaking order dated 29.10.2026 (Ref. No. I/3036834/2026), whereunder the applicant’s representation has been disposed of by passing the following concluding order: “20. In view of the foregoing, the competent authority hereby regrets the representation at this stage. As no change is being made, the question of intimating corrective action to the Ministry does not arise. A copy of this order will be sent to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.

21. The matter shall be reviewed by the competent authority within two weeks of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8828/2026, or on the expiry of three months from the date of this order, whichever is earlier, in accordance with law and any directions of the Hon’ble High Court. The Applicant may make a further representation at that stage. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint, the ICC report or the pending proceedings.

22. The representation dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure A-46), along with the reminder dated 09.09.2026, stands disposed of accordingly, in compliance with the order dated 14.10.2026 of the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 4025/2026. This issues with the approval of the competent authority, the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi.”

11. ​The applicant’s representation has been declined essentially on the ground that the Nursing Officer (the complainant) has filed W.P.(C) No. 8828/2026 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the Director, AIIMS to decide her representation dated 19.11.2025, described by her therein as an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the POSH Act’), and seeking protection of herself and the witnesses from retaliation. The written submissions filed by respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition were also placed before us by Mr. Gautam. In those written submissions, respondent No. 1 has taken the stand that no appeal lies before the Director under Section 18(1) of the POSH Act and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable, while stating that the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025 was issued as a working arrangement which substantially addresses the prayer for protection. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, reiterated his stand that only the Governing Body of AIIMS

has jurisdiction to initiate any inquiry or take any action, including the initiation of a departmental inquiry, against the applicant. He submitted that even a temporary arrangement displacing the senior-most Professor from the position of HoD is required to be made by the Governing Body of AIIMS, and, therefore, respondent No. 1, through its Director, has no jurisdiction to deprive the applicant of the position of HoD. Mr. Maninder Singh placed on record the order dated 30.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8828/2026 filed by the said aggrieved Nursing Officer, and submitted that the pendency of the writ petition cannot be a ground to deprive the applicant of, or delay his restoration to, the position of HoD.

12. ​Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, supported the speaking order dated 29.10.2026. The stand of respondent No. 1, as reflected therein, is that the HoD is not a separate post at AIIMS but an administrative charge held in addition to substantive duties without remuneration, so that the working arrangement causes the applicant no loss of rank, pay or seniority, and that under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, the Director is in charge of the administration of the Institute and allocates duties to its officers and employees, and the seniority norm does not take away his power to make a temporary arrangement for a stated reason, for a limited period and subject to review. Mr. Gautam further submitted that there is a working interface between the office of HoD, CTVS and the work of the complainant, and that the complainant has sought protection from retaliation before the Hon’ble High Court and judicial propriety calls for restraint while those proceedings are pending. He further submitted that the judgment in Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende (supra) concerned inter se seniority and is distinguishable. He further stated that the Memorandum dated 19.12.1989, which deals with arrangements during the absence of the HoD, has no application.

13. ​We have gone through the pleadings and the documents placed on record by the respective parties. We have also given our anxious thought to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

14. ​The question that arises for our consideration is whether respondent No. 1, through its Director, could divest the applicant, who is admittedly the senior-most Professor of the Department of CTVS, notified as its HoD with effect from 04.05.2024 of the charge of HoD by way of a “working arrangement”, and whether that arrangement could be continued after the complaint which had been examined and closed. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the senior-most Professor of CTVS. The speaking order dated 29.10.2026 itself records, in para 16, that the Institute does not dispute that the applicant is the senior-most Professor of CTVS, and that under the Memorandum dated 28.08.2014 the responsibility to act as HoD is entrusted on the basis of seniority and that norm continues to apply. Para 5 of the said Memorandum dated 28.08.2014 reads as under:

“5. At any point of time when it comes to entrusting the responsibility to act as Head of the Department, it will be on the basis of seniority of the faculty members irrespective of his/her appointment for main Department or for the Centres (as was done in the past in the case of Department of Pathology (Dr. Kusum Verma) and Department of Radio-Diagnosis (Dr. S. Vashisth).”

15. ​The respondents seek to justify the departure from this norm under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, which provides that the Director “shall be in-charge of the administration of the Institute. He shall allocate duties to the officers and employees of the Institute and shall exercise such supervision and executive control as may be necessary subject to the rules and these regulations”. The power to allocate duties is thus expressly subject to the rules and regulations. Under Section 10(2) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, the Governing Body is the executive committee of the Institute, and under Regulation 33 read with Schedule II of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, the Governing Body is the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘A’ posts such as that of the applicant. Relying upon the decisions of the Governing Body (para 5 (iv) above), the applicant contends that whenever the authorities, including the Director, sought to deviate from the norm that the senior-most faculty member is to be the HoD, the deviation was corrected by the Governing Body or by the Courts.

16. ​We find merit in the applicant’s reliance on the minutes of the 137th meeting of the Governing Body of AIIMS held on 24.01.2007 and the 140th (Extraordinary) meeting of the

Governing Body held on 20.12.2007. In the 137th meeting, while dealing with the issue of the HoD of the Department of Biophysics after the retirement of Dr. T.P. Singh, the Governing Body decided that the senior-most faculty member may be allowed to act as HoD, thereby reiterating that it is the senior-most faculty member of a Department who is to be made its HoD. In the 140th meeting, the Governing Body considered the action of the then Director who, notwithstanding that Dr. A. Sampath Kumar, the senior-most Professor, had been appointed as HoD, CTVS, had directed another Professor to discharge the duties of Acting HoD of CTVS. The agenda note placed before the Governing Body specifically referred to Regulation 11 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999, which, like the present Regulation 11, vested in the Director the power to allocate duties. The decision of the Director was set aside by the Governing Body, which directed restoration of status quo ante and permitted Dr. Sampath Kumar, being the senior-most in the Department, to function as HoD, CTVS. This decision of the Governing Body also shows that the Director, in the exercise of his power under Regulation 11, is bound to recognise the senior-most faculty member of a Department as its HoD to discharge the duties, functions and responsibilities of 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.

17. ​In Dr. Akshya Bisoi (supra), the issue regarding the seniority of the applicant and others in the Department of

CTVS was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court recognised and reiterated the principle that the senior-most member of the Department of CTVS would be designated as, and would assume the charge of, HoD. The relevant observations read as follows: “3. The first petitioner (Dr A.K. Bisoi), the second petitioner (Dr U.K. Chowdhury) and the fourth respondent (Dr Shiv K. Choudhary) were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors on 4-6-2003. On 1-7-2003, they were promoted as Associate Professors. On 23-9-2005, they were appointed by direct recruitment as Additional Professors. On 1-7-2010, they were promoted as Professors, a position which they now occupy. The seniormost will be designated as Head of Department of CTVS. xxx

9. … The Head of the CTVS Department demitted service on 31-12-2017. The seniormost would assume charge as Head of Department.”

18. ​In Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), the norm and policy decision that the senior-most Professor is entitled to be the Head of the Department was also taken judicial note of, and it was, inter alia, observed as under: “67. Another ancillary issue falling under this head is when the Director of the Institute keeps on occupying and blocks the post of a Professor and Head of the Department of a particular specialty, then besides it being impermissible in law, it also causes great administrative hindrances and disadvantages, which obviously are not in the interest of the institution. Firstly, there would be frustration in the concerned Department itself as the seniormost Professor would not be able to act as Head of the Department of that specialty, which in normal course, he ought to discharge; …”

19. ​In Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende (supra), another Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi did not accept the reliance placed by AIIMS on Regulation 11 of the

AIIMS Regulations, 2019 to justify the appointment of a person other than the senior-most Professor as HoD. In that case, the petitioner, despite being the senior-most Professor in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical Care at AIIMS, had not been appointed as HoD on the ground that he was, at the relevant time, working in the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, and a person junior to him had been appointed as HoD. Rejecting the contentions of AIIMS, the Hon’ble High Court issued directions in para 47. Paras 1 and 47 of the judgment read as follows: “1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) in OA No. 391/2022 and OM dated 03.02.2022 whereby respondent no. 3 has been appointed as the Head of Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, AIMS(sic), New Delhi w.e.f 01.03.2022. A direction is sought to the respondents to appoint petitioner as the HoD, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain medicine and Critical Care, being the senior most person in the said department. xxx

47. In light of above, the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 391/2022 and OM dated 03.02.2022 whereby respondent no. 3 (now retired as informed by the learned counsel for petitioner) has been appointed as the Head of Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, AIIMS, New Delhi w.e.f 01.03.2022, are hereby set aside, with direction to respondent-AIIMS to take petitioner’s position as per seniority list dated 24.12.2020 of faculty, which was uploaded by AIIMS on its website wherein his name featured at Serial No. 4 in the list of Professors of Department and Dr. Lokesh Kashyap, respondent No. 3 herein, at serial No. 5 and pass necessary orders in respect of designation, fixation of pay and arrears etc. within four weeks.”

20. ​The above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende (supra) reiterated the rule position at AIIMS that the senior-most Professor of a Department is to be its HoD. The judgment has been implemented by respondent AIIMS, as is evident from the OM dated 28.08.2024, whereby, consequent upon the judgment dated 09.08.2024, Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende was given the charge of HoD of the Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine & Critical Care. The attempt in para 17 of the speaking order to distinguish this judgment on the ground that it concerned inter se seniority does not advance the case of the respondents. In the present case, the applicant’s seniority is admitted; the principle that the senior-most Professor is to be the HoD therefore applies with greater force.

21. ​The applicant was assigned the charge of HoD of CTVS with effect from 04.05.2024. The OM dated 18.04.2024 in this regard reads as follows: “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Working arrangement of the Cardio-Thoracic & Vascular Surgery (CTVS) at the AIIMS, New Delhi. The Director has been pleased to order that Dr. Akshya Kumar Bisoi, Professor of CTVS will be the Head of the Department of Cardio-Thoracic & Vascular Surgery (CTVS) w.e.f. 04.05.2024, in addition to his own existing duties & responsibilities. Dr. Akshya Kumar Bisoi will not be entitled to any remuneration/honorarium for the aforesaid additional assignment.”

22. ​The respondents have laid emphasis on the fact that the OM dated 18.04.2024 describes the headship as an additional assignment without remuneration, and contend that the working arrangement causes no loss of rank, pay or seniority. We are unable to accept this contention. The position was no different in 2007, when the agenda note placed before the Governing Body in its 140th meeting recorded that there is no post of Chief of Centre or HoD as such, that these are additional assignments, and that, as per the existing practice, the senior-most Professor of the Centre or Department is made its Chief or HoD in addition to his or her normal duties. Even so, the Governing Body did not permit the Director to displace the senior-most Professor. The headship of a Department carries with it administrative and financial responsibilities, as noticed in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), and the norm that it goes to the senior-most Professor is one that the Institute itself acknowledges. Divesting the senior-most Professor of that charge on the basis of a complaint, as the Institute’s own clarification dated 18.10.2025 shows, plainly affects his standing in the Institute, whether or not it affects his pay.

23. ​An issue similar to the one involved in the present OA has also been considered by the Governing Body of AIIMS in respect of Dr. A. Sampath Kumar. In 2007, Dr. Sampath Kumar, the senior-most Professor, held the charge of HoD of the Department of CTVS and Chief of C.T. Centre. However, by a memo dated 17.10.2007 issued under the signatures of the Director, it was ordered that Prof. Balram Airan would discharge the duties of Acting HoD of CTVS and Acting Chief of C.T. Centre with immediate effect till further orders (page

285 of the paper book). The President, AIIMS directed that the orders/memos issued by the Director in that connection be kept in abeyance, and the matter was placed before the Governing Body. The Governing Body did not countenance the Director’s action and directed restoration of status quo ante. The relevant observations in the minutes of the 140th meeting of the Governing Body (pages 291-292 of the paper book) are as follows: “The agenda item relating to the HOD, CTVS and Chief, C.T. Centre at AIIMS was discussed. It was pointed out that Dr. Sampath Kumar who is the senior most in the Department of CTVS was appointed as HOD of CTVS after the Judgment of 29th March 2007. However, based on a newspaper item, the former Director appointed a Committee at his own level to look into the issue and removed Dr. Sampath Kumar from the position of HOD of CTVS and Chief, CT. Centre. The GB noted that the Committee constituted by the then Director, AIIMS without the approval of President, AIIMS has no locus standi. It was resolved that status quo ante should be restored and Dr. Sampath Kumar should be allowed to function as HOD, CTVS. The acting-Director, AIIMS should consider the entire issue and bring it before the GB for its consideration.” We may note that the “Judgment of 29th March 2007” referred to in the above minutes is the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), which was decided on that date.

24. ​That apart, in the speaking order dated 29.10.2026, by which the applicant’s representation was disposed of by respondent No. 1, the following observations were made in paras 13 and 14: “13. The Institute accepts the record as it stands. The Chief, C.T. Centre did not find the allegations confirmed. The ICC found that the remarks did not amount to sexual harassment and recommended no penalty. The SC/ST/OBC Committee found no caste based abuse, and the NCST has closed its case. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against the Applicant on this complaint. The working arrangement is not founded on any finding of misconduct and is not a penalty. Nothing in the Memorandum dated 11.10.2025, the later communications or this order is a finding against the conduct or character of the Applicant. The complaint was referred to the ICC having regard to its nature, and the reference calls for no decision now.

14. The ICC has recorded that there was no reporting relationship. However, the meeting of 29.09.2025 was conducted by the Applicant in the CTVS ICU A, on the transfer of patients and related work in which the complainant was involved. There is thus a working interface between the office of HoD, CTVS and the work of the complainant. The Union’s representation dated 04.10.2025 also reported threats (paragraph 3). These reports were second hand and have not been inquired into. The competent authority records no finding on them and does not proceed on the basis that they are true. It has only kept in mind that such reports were made, that they concern the authority of the HoD over staff, and that the complainant has sought protection from retaliation before the Hon’ble High Court. The working arrangement is a precaution to remove any occasion for such apprehension while the matter is pending.”

25. ​Thus, the above averments show that the Institute has accepted the applicant’s stand, and the Chief, C.T. Centre did not find the allegations confirmed. The ICC found that the remarks did not amount to sexual harassment and recommended no penalty. The SC/ST/OBC Committee found no caste-based abuse. The NCST has closed its case. It is also admitted that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the applicant, and that the working arrangement is not founded on any finding of misconduct. The respondents also admit that there is no reporting relationship between the applicant and the aggrieved woman. As regards the Union’s representation, the respondents themselves state that the

reports were second-hand, that they have not been inquired into, and that the competent authority records no finding on them and does not proceed on the basis that they are true. If that be so, such unverified reports, on which admittedly no finding has been recorded, could not furnish a legally sustainable basis for keeping the applicant out of the charge of HoD for over a year. The “working interface” relied upon is a single meeting held on 29.09.2025 on the transfer of patients. This cannot make the complainant an employee under the administrative control of the HoD, CTVS, contrary to the finding of the ICC which the Institute accepts.

26. ​Therefore, it is undisputed that the allegations against the applicant were not found substantiated by the Chief, C.T. Centre, the ICC held that the remarks attributed to him did not amount to sexual harassment and recommended no penalty, the Internal Grievance Redressal Committee for SC/ST/OBC Employees found no caste-based abuse, and the NCST has closed its case. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. Though the ICC observed that the remarks were inappropriate and advised the applicant to exercise restraint, sensitivity and professionalism in future communications, that advice is not a finding of misconduct, and the respondents themselves state that the working arrangement is not founded on any such finding and is not a penalty. As stated above, being the senior-most Professor, the applicant is entitled to be the HoD of the Department, and therefore, he ought to have been restored to the position of HoD of the Department of CTVS. At this stage, we must take note of the fact that the applicant’s representation has not been accepted essentially on the basis of the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 8828/2026. This writ petition has been adjourned from time to time at the instance of the aggrieved woman, and even notice is yet to be issued therein. Before the Hon’ble High Court, an apprehension was expressed on behalf of the respondent therein that the pendency of the writ petition would be used in other forums. Thereupon, the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court made the following observations in the order dated 30.09.2026: “1. A request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that even though notice is yet to be issued in the present petition, it is apprehended that the petitioner will make use of the pendency of the present petition in other forums.

3. Undisputedly, the notice is yet to be issued in the present petition and the matter has been pending for arguments on maintainability of the petition. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the pendency of the present petition being used in any other forum.

4. … ”

27. ​The observations in para 3 above make it clear that the pendency of the writ petition could not come in the way of the applicant being restored to the position of HoD. Moreover, respondent No. 1’s own stand before the Hon’ble High Court is that no appeal lies before the Director under Section 18(1) of the POSH Act and that the writ petition is not maintainable. Having taken that stand, respondent No. 1 cannot treat the mere pendency of the very same writ petition as a reason for continuing to keep the applicant out of the charge of HoD.

28. ​What is surprising is that, though the speaking order refers to the pendency of this writ petition, the order dated 30.09.2026 passed therein is not referred to in the said order while deciding the representation. The order dated 30.09.2026 was placed on record by Mr. Maninder Singh. We find that Mr. Gautam, who appears for respondent No. 1 before us, also appears for respondent No. 1 (AIIMS) in the said writ petition. It was the duty of respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Kaushal Gautam to place the said order dated 30.09.2026 on record. This order was concealed by the respondents only to contend that the pendency of the said writ petition is a good ground to deprive the applicant of the HoD position.

29. ​Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that, firstly, the Director of respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to deprive the applicant of the charge and status of HoD, which flows to him as the senior-most Professor under the norm laid down and enforced by the Governing Body of AIIMS. The power of the Director under Regulation 11(a) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019 to allocate duties is subject to the rules and regulations and cannot be exercised to override that norm. Any departure from it, if at all permissible, would lie solely with the Governing Body of AIIMS. Secondly, the complaint having been examined and closed, the ICC having held that the remarks did not amount to sexual harassment and having recommended no penalty, the other forums having found nothing against him, and no disciplinary proceeding being pending, the position of HoD of the said Department cannot be withheld from him. Thirdly, the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 8828/2026 is no ground to continue the arrangement, for the reasons stated in paras 26 to 28 above. In the above circumstances, the OA is allowed with the following order:

(i) The impugned Memorandum dated 11.10.2025 and the communications dated 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents are directed to restore the applicant to the position of HoD of the Department of CTVS, AIIMS by giving him the charge of HoD. This exercise shall be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

30. ​ There shall be no order as to costs. ​ Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of.

​ ( Rajinder Kashyap )​ ( Justice Ranjit More ) ​ Member (A)​ Chairman

gm