The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the Director's authority under the NIT Act to take disciplinary actions, the consideration of delay in disciplinary proceedings, and the application of the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right.

Sujoy Paul J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to three orders No.F.No.11/10(1)/649, F.No.11/10(1)/650 and F.No.11/10(1)/651 dated 24.06.2016.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that petitioner was working as Registrar in respondent No.2/Institution. Petitioner's services were absorbed on the post of Registrar of respondent No.2/institution in the year 1992. His services were terminated on 30.6.1993. Pursuant to court's order passed in W.P.No.2726/13, he was reinstated with all consequential benefits. Petitioner was again compulsorily retired from service on 28.09.2007. The said order of compulsory retirement was set aside by the writ court and petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Against the said order passed in W.P.No.97/08, W.A.No.975/10 was filed before the Division Bench. The said writ appeal was partly allowed. The order of writ court was partly upheld but it was directed that reinstatement of the petitioner as Registrar of respondent No.2 will not be possible on account of the fact that the institution, during pendency of the proceedings, has already selected and appointed another officer as Registrar. This order of Division Bench was challenged by the present petitioner before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7718/12. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the Division Bench by directing that the petitioner be reinstated as Registrar of the Institution with all consequential benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.97/08. In turn, petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner was due for his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2016. Six days before his retirement, petitioner was served with the impugned orders. Petitioner is placed under suspension and disciplinary proceeding is instituted against him by issuance of a charge-sheet.

3. Petitioner criticized the suspension order and the charge-sheeted on three counts. Firstly, it is submitted that the Director of respondent No.2/institution, has no authority and jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension and issue the impugned charge sheet Annexure P/2. To bolster the aforesaid, reliance is placed on National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NIT Act'). By placing reliance on section 24 (v) and section 26 of the said Act, it is urged that the Director has no power to place the petitioner under suspension and issue the charge-sheet. Petitioner, for this purpose, relied on CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. He submits that only the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority can place the petitioner under suspension. The Director of respondent No. 2 is not the disciplinary authority. Secondly, it is urged that as per rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the charge-sheet could not have been issued for an incident which had taken place more than four years before such institution. Thirdly, it is submitted that the charge sheet is issued after an inordinate delay of about 29 years and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay itself. The petitioner submits that for no justifiable reason, petitioner is placed under suspension. The whole exercise is arbitrary and capricious in nature.

4. Per contra, Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned orders. The stand of respondent No.2 is also based on the NIT act, on which, reliance is placed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Director is competent to place the petitioner under suspension and institute departmental inquiry by issuance of charge sheet. Shri Dixit urged that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension is taken by the Board of Governors. The decision is filed as Annexure R-1. It is submitted that as per CCA Rules, an employee can be placed under suspension during pendency of an investigation, inquiry or trial. It is submitted that the illegalities on the