The Chandigarh Administration has withdrawn its plea that challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had put a stay on taking back the additional charge of Chandigarh College of Architecture principal given to Dr Sangeeta Bagga.
The appeal of the Chandigarh Administration had come up for hearing before the high court Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal.
The administration had submitted before the HC that the CAT had stayed UT’s order (dated July 19) through which additional charge granted to Bagga was withdrawn. The administration said that the CAT’s order was against the settled legal principle and had moved court for quashing the impugned order dated July 22 on grounds of being “erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law”.
The UT Administration added Bagga was facing a high-level inquiry, with serious allegations made by an independent and statutory Body —the Council of Architecture. It made it imperative to have a neutral person to substitute her as the principal. She could not be allowed to remain at the helm of affairs at the college as she could interfere, tamper and prejudice the inquiry proceedings.
Rohit Seth, counsel for Sangeeta Bagga, pointed out that the matter is now stated to be listed for October 12 at CAT. The HC thus dismissed the petition of UT Administration.
The CAT had earlier issued a notice to the Chandigarh Administration, along with the stay order, on Professor Bagga’s application filed through her counsel. A professor in the College of Architecture, Bagga, had also sought directions to allow her to continue as the principal till regular appointment, being the senior most professor with PhD and fully qualified and eligible to hold the post. Directions were also sought to fill the principal’s post on a permanent basis in a time-bound manner.
Appearing on Bagga’s behalf, Seth had contended that his client was given the additional charge on September 21, 2017, being senior most faculty member. He contended that vague and frivolous complaints were made against her in the past by parties with vested interests.