Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Dr Praveen Kumar Malik & Ors.

$~137
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010540212026
+ W.P.(C) 16593/2026, CM APPLs. 77806/2026, 77807/2026,
77808/2026, 77809/2026 & 77810/2026
EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr.
Gurpreet Singh, Ms. Himanshi Girdhar, Mr.
Deepanshu Grover and Ms. Sakshi Jain,
Advs.
versus
DR PRAVEEN KUMAR MALIK & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 05.11.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails the following order passed by the
1
Central Administrative Tribunal on 13 October 2026:
“The matter is listed today for consideration of the applicant's
prayer for grant of interim relief.
2. Despite opportunities, the respondents have not filed any
short reply. None appears for respondent No. 4. Learned counsel
appearing for the applicant presses for grant of interim relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, by referring to
the assertions made in the O.A., submits that the applicant, while
working as an Associate Professor of General Medicine under
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, applied for the post of Professor of
Medicine under respondent No. 4 through proper channel. Upon
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16593/2026 Page 1 of 5

being selected by respondent No. 4 in accordance with the relevant
rules on the subject, respondent No. 4 issued an offer of
appointment to the post of Professor of Medicine on 07.07.2026
(page 134, Annexure A-10).
4. The applicant, on 07.07.2026 itself, requested respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 to relieve him in order to enable him to join the services
of respondent No. 4 on the post for which he had been selected and
for which an offer of appointment had been issued. However,
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not relieve the applicant. Accordingly,
the applicant requested respondent No. 4 to extend the time for
joining the post.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned memorandum dated
08.09.2026 (page 55 of the paper book), whereby it has been
proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under the
Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of
Service) Regulations, 2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
allegations contained in the impugned memorandum are vague and
factually incorrect inasmuch as the allegations relate to the
discharge of a patient from the ICU. The applicant submits that the
ICU was never under his charge. The applicant was having
administrative control over only 15 beds, whereas the charge of the
remaining 34 beds was with Dr. P.K. Verma.
7. As an interim measure, the applicant has prayed for a
direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provisionally accept his
technical resignation and relieve him at the earliest, preferably
within one week, to enable him to join the post of Professor of
Medicine for which an offer of appointment has already been
issued by respondent No. 4.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has a prima facie case in his favour and that the balance of
convenience also lies in his favour. It is further submitted that, if
the interim relief sought is not granted, the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss, inasmuch as he would be deprived of joining a
higher post for which he has been selected by respondent No. 4. On
the other hand, the respondents are not likely to suffer any
irreparable loss or hardship if the interim relief is granted, as the
applicant would be under the disciplinary control of respondent
No. 4. The applicant is otherwise ready to face the consequences
arising out of the impugned charge memorandum in accordance
with law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16593/2026 Page 2 of 5

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, under instructions, vehemently opposes the applicant's
prayer for grant of interim relief. She submits that granting the
interim relief sought would tantamount to granting the final relief,
inasmuch as the applicant has substantially prayed for a direction
to the respondents to accept the technical resignation and relieve
him forthwith to enable him to join the post of Professor of General
Medicine at AIIMS-CAPFIMS, New Delhi, under respondent No.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
NOC was issued to the applicant when the situation was different,
inasmuch as the Clinical Audit Committee was constituted
subsequent thereto.
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant invites our
attention to page 98 of the paper book, containing the report of the
Clinical Audit Committee, and submits that the said Committee has
not recorded any adverse findings against the applicant.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, in
identical facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this
Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court, allowed O.A. No. 4909 of 2024, titled DR.
MANAS KARMAKAR Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION (ESIC), wherein ESIC was also a respondent.
The Tribunal, in the said matter, vide order dated 24.12.2024,
directed respondent No. 2, i.e. ESIC, to accept the technical
resignation of the applicant therein within one week, subject to the
final outcome of the O.A. Pursuant to the said interim order, the
technical resignation of the applicant therein was accepted, and he
joined the services.
12. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties. From the facts recorded hereinabove, it is
evident that, on the relevant date when the respondents issued the
No Objection Certificate permitting the applicant to participate in
the selection process for the post of Professor of General Medicine
under respondent No. 4, no disciplinary proceedings were pending
against the applicant. Even on the date when the offer of
appointment was issued, no charge memorandum had been issued
to the applicant.
13. Furthermore, in respect of the same respondent, this
Tribunal passed an interim order in O.A. No. 4909 of 2024, which
was complied with by the respondents, and the said O.A. was
ultimately allowed vide order dated 03.09.2025.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as an
interim measure, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16593/2026 Page 3 of 5

provisionally accept the technical resignation of the applicant from
the post of Associate Professor and relieve him from the said post
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week from
today.
15. Upon being so relieved, respondent No. 4 shall permit the
applicant to join the post of Professor of General Medicine in
accordance with its own rules and instructions.
16. The respondents may file their reply within three weeks.
The applicant shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder, if any, within
two weeks thereafter.
17. List the matter on 26.11.2026.
18. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, Order
DASTI.”
2. Mr. Siddharth, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Tribunal has effectively granted the final relief in the
OA at the interim stage and also submits that there are disciplinary
proceedings pending against the respondent, pertaining to charges
which, according to him, are serious.
3. The impugned order is purely interim in nature. It clearly states
that the release of the respondent and acceptance of his technical
resignation would be provisional. This provisionality would also apply
to the joining of the respondent as Professor in the General Medicine
in AIIMS-CAPFIMS.
4. We clarify this position.
5. Beyond this, we are not inclined to interfere, as the impugned
order is purely interlocutory and discretionary in nature.
6. We also note that the OA itself is listed before the Tribunal on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16593/2026 Page 4 of 5

26 November 2026. As the case deals with the appointment of a post
of Professor of General Medicine, acceptance of his technical
resignation and his joining as Professor in the AIIMS-CAPFIMS, it
cannot brook any delay.
7. We, therefore, request the Tribunal on 26 November 2026 to
hear arguments in the OA itself and to take a decision thereon as
expeditiously as possible thereafter.
8. Neither side would be entitled to take an adjournment from the
Tribunal on 26 November 2026.
9. We direct the petitioner to file a reply to the OA positively
within ten days from today before the Tribunal with an advance copy
to the learned Counsel for the respondent, who may file rejoinder
thereto so as to be on record before the Tribunal on or before 24
November 2026.
10. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any of the
issues in controversy.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 5, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:03:13
W.P.(C) 16593/2026 Page 5 of 5