Dr brijnandan gupta vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE on 4 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD Order Sheet Item no.: 3 O.A./1244/2026 (ALLAHABAD) [ SUSPENSION ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 04/11/2026 DR BRIJNANDAN GUPTA Vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

For Applicant(s) Advocate :

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Order of The Tribunal The Applicant Dr. Brijnandan Gupta is present in person. Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan and Shri Vidyanath Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, are present. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 16.10.2026 issued by the respondent no 3 whereby the applicant has been placed under immediate suspension. The applicant has alleged that the aforesaid suspension order is illegal and arbitrary and has just been issued by the respondent no 3 as a measure of malice, personal grudge and animosity against the applicant to penalize him for being a whistleblower as he had filed a complaint in CVC against the respondent no 3 for the practices related to financial corruption and fraudulent appointments made by her. Through this OA, the applicant has sought quashing of the aforesaid suspension order thereby directing the respondents to treat the entire period of suspension as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes and that all consequential benefits be accrued to the applicant and he may be permitted to work as usual without being subjected to any further disciplinary action or retaliatory measure. As interim relief, the applicant has prayed for stay on the effect and operation of the order dated 16.10.2026 thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant to his post as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology, AIIMS Gorakhpur with all consequential benefits. Heard the applicant who has appeared in person and learned counsel for the respondents on the issue of admission and interim relief. Applicant submitted that he is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology in AIIMS Gorakhpur and acting as a Whistleblower, he submitted several complaints to respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 requesting inquiry against Superintendent Engineer Ms. Manisha Tiwari regarding her educational qualification and lack of experience but no action was taken on the part of the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3. In this regard, several emails were also sent by him to Union Health Minister and several senior officials of MoHFW highlighting the ineligibility of Superintendent Engineer Ms. Manisha Tiwari. Follow up emails in this regard were also sent by him on 24.08.2026. Applicant received notice u/s 179 BNSS on 28.08.2026. On 29.08.2026, the applicant intimated about this notice and submitted his detailed written explanation addressed to Sub-Inspector Jagriti Kharwar in the office of respondent no 3 explaining that SE Manisha Tiwari was wreaking vengeance due to whistleblower complaints against her appointment and alleged that respondent no 3 is probably the one not taking any action against her. Upon no action, applicant lodged an online CVC Complaint against respondent no 3 for inaction on the alleged financial irregularities and also against Ms. Manisha Tiwari regarding fraudulent appointment and ineligibility. After getting calls from UP Police officer that applicant's written reply of 29.08.2026 was allegedly not sent to AIIMS Thana of UP Police for more than a month, applicant in his email dated 03.10.2026 and 04.10.2026, addressed to respondent no 3, primarily sought immediate forwarding of his defense reply dated 29.08.2026 to the concerned Police authorities (in FIR No 158/2026). Officiating Administrative Officer sent email to applicant seeking email ID confirmation. On 07.10.2026, applicant met him in person and verbally confirmed the emails and requested him to convey the same to respondent no 3. Inflicting malice and grudge against the applicant, the respondent no 3 hurriedly issued and served the impugned suspension order dated 16.10.2026, citing contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for 'insubordination' and non-confirmation of email id, without issuing any prior show-cause notice or calling explanation. Applicant has also argued that just the word insubordination has been used in the suspension order but what were the acts committed by the applicant which amount to insubordination have not been explained anywhere by the respondents. Applicant further argued that the respondent no 3 via email directed the applicant to mark his attendance daily in attendance register, which the applicant is complying despite the same being not in conformity as per CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 or any other applicable rules. Applicant further argued that the suspension order has been passed in violation of Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, DoPT on OM on suspension and PMSSY-IV executive order. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances, prayer was made by the applicant to stay the effect and operation of the suspension order. To substantiate his case, applicant has placed reliance upon the following case laws:

i. Judgment dated 30.03.1999 passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Capt. M Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr reported in AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1416.

ii. Judgment dated 21.09.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors reported in 1999 INSC427.

iii. Judgment dated 15.6.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Shiv Pratap Verma Vs Union of India Through its Secretary reported in 2026:JHHC:17463. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed applicant's prayer for interim relief and argued that through his emails dated 03.10.2026 and 04.10.2026 sent to the respondent no 3, the applicant leveled several baseless allegations against respondent no 3 which is the superior authority to the applicant. In those mails, language used by the applicant was of offensive and intimidating nature so much so that his conduct amounts to insubordination and is contrary to the settled principles of discipline and rules governing official conduct. Learned counsel further argued that it is wrong on the part of the applicant to state that no show cause notice has ever been issued against him. The work and conduct of the applicant has remained questionable and unsatisfactory earlier also due to which a show cause notice dated 08.10.2026 was issued to Dr Vikas Shrivastava, Head of Department, Department of Pathology AIIMS Gorakhpur (who was the supervisory authority of the applicant) wherein it was explicitly recorded that the applicant could not complete the work allotted to him by the competent authority in a time bound manner. In this way, he has also violated the terms and conditions enumerated in the Office Order dated 01.11.2021 which was the offer of appointment given to the applicant which he had accepted and accordingly joined the department. Furthermore, the applicant committed serious misconduct when he addressed an email dated 31.08.2025 to the departmental authority wherein he blatantly refused to attend the admin duty allotted to him and even asked the authorities to post someone else for that duty. This act of the applicant amounts to absolute dereliction. Thus, on the basis of misconduct committed on the part of the applicant, it was incumbent upon the respondents to suspend him from duty and accordingly, suspension order dated 16.10.2026 was issued by the competent authority on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are being contemplated against him. No irregularity or illegality can be attributed to this action of the respondents. Thus, argued to reject applicant's prayer for interim relief. To substantiate his averments, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the aforesaid discussed documents.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws and documents relied upon by the contesting parties. The applicant has sought stay on the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 16.10.2026 issued by the respondent no 3. The language used in the suspension order states that the same has been issued by the order of the President, AIIMS Gorakhpur and Chairman (Governing Body) and in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965. In this regard, it is pertinent to clarify that vide Memorandum F. No.:-17-78/85- Estt.(H) dated 07.08.2023 issued by the AIIMS New Delhi, it was stated that "Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 read with Regulation 33 of AIIMS Regulations 2019 provides that every Government servant shall at all times maintain discipline in the discharge of his duties and be liable to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to him, maintain devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant." This makes it abundantly clear that the services of the employees of AIIMS are also liable to be governed in accordance with the provisions enshrined in Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 have also been adopted by the AIIMS. The applicant has alleged that he has been made to suffer just because he made complaints against the respondent no 3 for her negligence and inaction in taking requisite steps against SE Manisha Tiwari. Applicant has also alleged that merely the word insubordination has been used in the suspension order but what were the acts committed by the applicant which amount to insubordination have not been explained anywhere by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents have argued that the applicant sent emails to the respondent no 3 wherein he used offensive and intimidating language and also refused to perform the official duties which were allotted to him by the competent authority and thus his acts amount to unbecoming of a government servant. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee’s trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of ’Subsistence Allowance’, so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court, in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 328 made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance: "An order of suspension of a government servant does not put an end to his service under the government. He continues to be a

member of the service in spite of the order of suspension. The real effect of suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India is that he continues to be a member of the government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance -- generally called subsistence allowance -- which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a government servant injuriously. The very expression ’subsistence allowance’ has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word ’Subsist’ as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II at p. 2171 is "to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means -- means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood.” If, therefore, even that amount is not paid, then the very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the period of suspension would be frustrated. The act of non-payment of Subsistence Allowance can be likened to slow-poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on account of non- payment of Subsistence Allowance, would gradually starve himself to death.” Similarly, in the case of Shiv Pratap Verma (supra), Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has held that: “20. An important aspect of the case in hand is the Petitioner's insinuation of retaliation by the top management for his acts of disclosure to the Central Vigilance Commission and other high Constitutional authorities. The primary challenge of whistleblowing is the real risk of retribution that follows. Protecting the identity of the whistleblower significantly mitigates the probability of retribution. However, in real practice, the identity is often compromised or becomes too apparent in the course of any enquiry based on the information provided by the whistleblower. In such cases, retaliation has chilling effects on whistleblower and requires a protection mechanism.

21. Even though retaliation itself is not defined, it is to be understood as any broad discrimination or conduct, actual and threatened, which has an adverse impact on such employee. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult for whistleblower to prove retaliation if the entire burden of proof is placed on them.” Similarly, in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. As has been disclosed hereinabove, firstly, applicant’s pleading is that he raised complaint regarding illegality / irregularity committed in selection process of Ms. Manisha Tiwari, SE. Complaints were made to several higher authorities. As per pleading of the applicant, he also made several requests to the respondent no 2 and 3 but no action was taken in the matter. Respondents’ stand at this stage itself is that inquiry / investigation regarding irregularity / illegality caused in appointment of Ms. Manisha Tiwari is a different thing. Law will take course in its own way in this respect if any complaint has been made at the end of the applicant but use of threatening, offensive and intimidating language against the respondent no 3 by the applicant clearly comes under the definition of insubordination as well as unbecoming of a government servant. Applicant’s plea is also that suspension order has been passed in retaliation of the complaint made by him. Before analyzing the submissions raised on behalf of the parties, it will also be useful to quote the language used in the impugned suspension order which is as follows: "ORDER Whereas, a disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Brijnandan Gupta, Assistant Professor, AIIMS, Gorakhpur is being contemplated for acts of insubordination committed through emails dated 03.10.2026 and 04.10.2026 sent to Executive Director which is contrary to settled principles of discipline and rules governing official conduct. Whereas, Dr. Brijnandan Gupta has failed to respond to email sent in this regard seeking confirmation of the email id used for such misconduct. Now, therefore, by order of the President, AIIMS, Gorakhpur and Chairman (Governing Body) and in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the services of Dr. Brijnandan Gupta are placed under suspension with immediate effect.

During the period this order shall remain in force, the headquarters of Dr. Brijnandan Gupta will be Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh) and he will not leave headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the undersigned." If the language used in the suspension order is taken into consideration, it is evident that the suspension order has been passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings for cause of insubordination committed by the applicant through emails dated 03.10.2026 and 04.10.2026. Suspension order is of dated 16.10.2026. At this stage, the Court / Tribunal before which the suspension order is challenged cannot analyse or go through the veracity of the charges or the merits of the defence. In the present matter, on what ground insubordination is construed is disclosed through the emails sent by the applicant to the Executive Director (respondent no 3). Suspension in contemplation of an inquiry is made to aid the process of inquiry. Suspension takes out the delinquent employee from his domain of influence. This ensures that the inquiry is independent and fair. Order of suspension pending in a contemplated inquiry by itself is not a punishment. As has been disclosed hereinabove, inquiry / investigation in the allegation leveled by the applicant against the selection of Ms. Manisha Tiwari is a different aspect but the language used in the emails by him extending threat and intimidation to his superior is a different thing. Suspension order is passed taking into the fact disclosed in the emails which construed the insubordination. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be presumed or held that impugned suspension order is by way of punishment and in retaliation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in 1994(4) SCC 126 held that the Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. At this stage, it can also not be consequently held that action of the respondents suspending the applicant is actuated by mala fides, arbitrariness or ulterior motives. Furthermore, with regard to the contents of the emails sent by the applicant, it is pertinent to record that if the applicant is serving under government establishment, he must abide by the conduct rules meant for governing the services of the government servants. Thus, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant to grant interim protection staying the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order. As far as granting of subsistence allowance is concerned, it shall be paid to the applicant as per rules and it cannot be denied by the respondents. Thus, prayer for interim protection is rejected. The OA is admitted. Respondents are granted a time of four weeks to file Counter. One week thereafter is granted to the applicant to file rejoinder. List this matter on 22.12.2026. Justice Om Prakash VII Member (J) Ritu Singh ( steno 'c' )