ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner who was originally in CRPF on 10.8.84 joined Special Protection Group ( hereinafter referred to as ‘SPG’) on 10.8.1994 by virtue of the induction letter dated 12.7.94. The petitioner was thereafter posted at the Prime Minister’s Residence on 3.5.1995. The petitioner has pleaded that while in S.P.G. she was promoted from S.A. to the rank of Naik and on 22.5.1995 the petitioner shifted her accommodation outside the S.P.G. Campus to reside with her family.
2. This petition challenges the Repatriation Order dated 7.4.1999, repatriating the petitioner from S.P.G. to her parent organization/C.R.P.F. On 28.4.1999, this Court has stayed the Order dated 7.4.1999 and on 10th May, 1999, the interim Order dated 28.4.1999 was modified and it was directed that the petitioner need not be posted at the Prime Minister’s residence.
3. The petitioner has pleaded that she has an unblemished service record and the order dated 7.4.1999 Passed was without any legal basis and neither any charge sheet was issued nor any opportunity was given to her to show cause and is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and void. The petitioner has further pleaded in her writ petition that she had a totally innocuous
social interaction with two Afghan students in the neighbourhood which may be the basis for the impugned action against her.
4. In the counter-affidavit it is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the S.P.G. is comprised of outstanding officers who are alert, agile and vigilant and only the personnel who are extremely fit, sincere and committed only are retained in the organisation. Those who are not found suitable are returned\repatriated to their parent organisation without any blemish on their career or record or any pecuniary loss. It has been stated that the letter dated 12.7.1994 containing the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s service with S.P.G. clearly provided in Para 3(v) that the period of deputation may ordinarily be six years but the officers would be liable to be repatriated to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reasons. It is further stated that ordinarily the deputation to S.P.G. is for six years but there are many instances when personnel on deputation to S.P.G. have been repatriated to their parent cadre even before the completion of the abovementioned six years period. Such orders of repatriation are not intended to cast any stigma on the person being repatriated to the parent cadre nor do the amount to infliction of any penalty.
5. The respondents have filed a list of officers who have been on deputation to S.P.G. for a period less than six years. The respondents have further submitted that they are only replying to averments in the writ petition regarding the petitioner’s interaction with Afghan internationals and the repatriation of the petitioner was not intended to nor in fact cast any stigma on the career profile of the petitioner. There were specific intelligence reports of threats from Afghan militants. It is submitted that due to the petitioner’s interaction with Afghan nationals and a threat perception to the security of the P.M. the petitioner was not found suitable for continuation in S.P.G. The induction of the petitioner to S.P.G. as per the Induction Letter dated 12.7.1994 (Annexure R-I annexed with the respondents counter affidavit) was on the following terms:
“The period of deputation will ordinarily be six years. However, officers on deputation can be repatriated to their parent organisation at any time without assigning any reason, if they are found unsuitable for assignments in the Special Protection Group.”
6. I am of the view that in the light of such clear terms in the induction letter, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge her repatriation to her parent cadre of CRPF since the terms of her induction into S.P.G. are very clear and no reasons are required to be assigned for the repatriation to the parent cadre. It is very clear that the S.P.G. was conceived to protect persons who needed very high security cover and in administrative matters involving such personnel it is not thus open to the petitioner to challenge in a writ court her repatriation in view of the clear terms of her Induction Letter dated 12.7.1994. In the counter affidavit it has been clarified that the impugned order dated 7.4.99 does not cast any stigma on the petitioner nor does it adversely affect her career profile. It has also been clarified by the respondent that the impugned order being purely administrative in nature and not by way of punishment, neither the said Act nor the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s induction into SPG require a hearing before the issue of an order of repatriation. Thus a writ court cannot sit in appeal over an administrative order of transfer/repatriation in the light of the above discussion particularly in view of the sensitive nature of the assignments relating to security handled by the SPG personnel.
7. Furthermore Section 12 of the Special Protection Group Act gives the petitioner an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal against the impugned order which does not appear to have been availed of by the petitioner. Even this availability of an alternate remedy would be a bar to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. In the light of the above, it is not possible to interfere in the present petition with the impugned order dated 7.4.1999. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated.
9. The petition and all the pending miscellaneous applications are accordingly disposed of.