Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
G. Rohini, C.J.
1. Respondent No. 4 in W.P.(C) No. 2780/2012 (Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur) (hereinafter referred to as 'IIT Kharagpur') is the appellant before us. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.03.2015 whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed C.M. No. 780/2015 filed by the writ petitioner seeking permission to raise additional grounds (specified in para-49 of the application) and also to insert an additional prayer in the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner (arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the present appeal), who is a Computer Science Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, claims to be an RTI Activist and whistle blower. By order dated 13.05.2011 passed by IIT Kharagpur, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against him alleging that he had deliberately tarnished the image of the Institute by making unsubstantiated allegations of mass copying in conduct of IIT Examinations.
3. The petitioner made representations before the respondents No. 1 to 3 (Central Vigilance Commission & Others) alleging that he is being harassed, threatened and victimized by IIT Kharagpur since he made several complaints to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) with regard to the irregularities committed by IIT Kharagpur in conducting Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admission in IITs and seeking protection from victimization. Alleging that the respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to take any action, W.P.(C) No. 2780/2012 is filed with a prayer to direct the CVC to act in terms of the Office Order No. 33/5/2004 dated 17.05.2004 whereunder the resolution of the Government of India on Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of the Informer (whistle blower) was circulated and to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the petitioner from victimization by ensuring that no punitive action is taken for his act of whistle blowing.
4. Alongwith the writ petition he also filed CM No. 5972/2012 seeking stay of operation of the order dated 13.05.2011. However, no such interim relief was granted and the application remained pending. Subsequently, the petitioner filed CM No. 1705/2013 apprehending that the respondent would pass coercive order of dismissal and seeking stay of all further proceedings. By order dated 18.02.2013 the learned Single Judge directed that in case the disciplinary authority comes to a conclusion that findings of enquiry officer merit acceptance, written communication should be sent to the Petitioner atleast one week before any action is taken. Thereafter by order dated 21.03.2013, the following directions were issued by the learned Single Judge:-
"I am informed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that the matter is now resting with the Board of Governors. A meeting is fixed for that purpose on 23.3.2013. I am also informed that the disciplinary authority has accepted the report of the enquiry officer.
The petitioner has been given notice to file a reply which the petitioner has filed pursuant to the notice issued by the Board of Governors.
It is made clear that while the Board of Governors of respondent No. 4 may deliberate and consider the matter in issue and pass an order but they will not give the effect to the same till further orders of the Court.
The petitioner says that there is another aspect of the matter which requires consideration, which is, that respondent No. 1 i.e. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has not considered the complaints, which the petitioner has filed with it.
Ms. Bhatia, who appears for respondent No. 1, submits that the CVC is not pre........