JUDGMENT
G.C. Srivastava, Member (A)
1. The applicant who was working as Police Inspector CBI/SPE at Ahmedabad on deputation basis under the respondents is aggrieved on account of action on their part in not considering his request for absorption in CBI and wrongfully repatriating him and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(A) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorbing; the petitioner in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation, effective from the previous date of joining of the petitioner in CBI, looking to the meritorious services rendered by the petitioner.
(B) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that repatriation and the in action on the part of the respondents in absorbing the petitioner in the office or the Central Bureau of Investigation is illegal, unconstitutional and against the democratic pattern of the country.
(BB) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned decision of the respondents not to extend the deputation of the petitioner with CBI, dated 5.1.1996 as arbitrary, illegal, without application of mind and issued with mala fide intention and therefore, be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the applicant with CBI on deputation.
(BBB) Be pleased to declare the in action on the part of the respondents to decide the application of the applicant for absorption in CBIO as unjust, arbitrary and direct the respondents to produce the records before the Hon’ble Tribunal for not considering the application of the applicant for absorption and for repatriation of the applicant in comparison with juniors and other candidates deputed from the department of the applicant to CBI.”
2. The case of the applicant is that while he was working as Inspector in the Deptt. of Customs and Central Excise he was deputed to work with the Superintendent of Police (SP) CBI Jaipur vide letter dated 25.8.92 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Additional Collector (P & V) Central Excise and Customs, The order was later changed and he joined as Police Inspector CBI/SPE at Ahmedabad. He requested vide his letter dated 15.10.93 to respondent No. 2 for his absorption in CBI. According to his information, the same was considered by the respondents and it was decided that the same may be considered after completion of two years of service by the applicant. The applicant made another representation on 26.10.94 after completion of two years, for his absorption in the CBI (Annexure A-2). The service particulars and written willingness of the applicant were also called for by the respondents and was forwarded by the concerned officers. However, the applicant was ordered to be repatriated to his parent deptt. of Central Excise vide letter dated 5.1.96 (Annexure A-3) as a result of which he is reverted back to his own deptt. Thereafter he made several representations to the various authorities but no avail. Aggrieved by this, the applicant has filed this O.A.
3. The respondents have contested this O.A. and have filed detailed reply. Since the applicant has not joined the Department of Customs as party and hence, no reply on their behalf has been filed.
4. We have heard Mr. P.H. Pathak and Mr. B.N. Doctor, the learned Counsel for the
applicant and the respondents respectively and have carefully gone through the
pleadings placed on record.
5. Before we go into the merits of the case, we would like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. B.N. Doctor, learned Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Doctor states that the O.A. has been filed in December 1997 challenging the order of repatriation dated 5.1.96 and therefore, the O.A. deserves to be rejected on the ground of limitation alone. In reply Mr. Pathak has simply stated that the application is not barred by limitation and is well within the time limit. We have examined the rival contentions and find that as per para-3 of the O.A., the order under challenge has been clearly mentioned as the order dated 5.1.96 and therefore, the O.A. which has been filed in December 97 is clearly barred by limitation. There is no application also filed for condonation of delay in absence of which it is not possible for this Tribunal to consider the question of condonation of delay. Accordingly on this ground alone the O.A. deserves to be rejected.
6. The main contentions raised by Mr. P.H. Pathak, the learned Counsel for the applicant are:- (I) Out of the four officers who have joined CBI in pursuance of order at Annexure A, all the 3 except the applicant have been given extension up to 7 years. All of them belong to the same parent department and same batch and they had shown their willingness to work in CBI after completion of their deputation period. (ii) One Mr. G.P. Thomas who belongs to the same parent department was relived after seven years of deputation and taken back to CBI within a short period on the basis of his willingness (in) One Mr. Jitendra singh has completed 9 years in CBI on deputation but he was granted extension excluding the claim of the applicant without any justification, (iv) The applicant has done commendable work and has contributed reporting of a number of cases of fraud and corruption and has been awarded many times. (v) The sudden repatriation of the applicant from CBI pending consideration of his request for permanent absorption is a malafide exercise of power with a view to delay in finalisation of corruption cases detected by him particularly against one Mr. Teripruri, Mr. Pathak has relied on the judgment in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 8 SC 381.
7. On the other hand, the contentions advanced by Mr. Doctor, the learned Counsel for the applicant are :- (i) The order under challenge is already implemented and
therefore, the same cannot be stayed. (ii) Deputation is not a matter of right and
deputationist cannot insist on continuing on deputation or extending its tenure. (iii) His
request for absorption was considered in CBI head quarters but was not acceded to by
the competent authority (v) The applicant has repatriated to his parent department only
after completion of his deputation period and the parent deptt. had also desired for his
repatriation. (vi) The cases detected by the applicant and the source information
supplied by him are still under investigation and have nothing to do with his case for repatriation. (vii) As far as other deputationists are concerned, the department considers their cases for retention or otherwise on merits. So far as the applicant is concerned his continuance in CBI on expiry of the deputation period and his absorption was not
considered on merits. In the light of these contentions, Mr. Doctor has argued that the case of the applicant deserves to be rejected.
8. We have considered the rival contentions. At the outset we would like to point out by way of preamble that as per the settled position, deputation means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department and after expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he was ordered promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. State of Punjab and Ors. v. Inder Singh and Ors. etc., 1997(9) SC 141 = 1998(2) SLJ 113 (SC). In another case of Mrs. P.K. Sandhu v. Shiv Raj V. Patil, AIR 1997 SC 2357=1997(3) SLJ 16 (SC), where the petitioner was working on deputation under the Lok Sabha Secretariat. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that after rendering service on contract basis on deputation and an expiry of the period thereof, the petitioner gets to his substantive post in his parent department where he came to be in the service of the Lok Sabha to the interregnum and therefore, he cannot compelled to lose his lien on the substantive post. It has been held in the case of State of M.P. v. Ashok Deshmukh and Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1240, that in a case where a person has been repatriated to the parent department by administrative order the Court cannot quash and set aside the administrative order made in exigencies of administration unless material is placed on record to support the allegation of bias and the same is proved. In a recent case of Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar v. SIG of Police, 2002(3) SLR 368, where the petitioner Head Constable of Gujarat Police and was drafted in Intelligence Bureau in 1991 on deputation and worked till 1999 and then repatriated to parent Organisation claiming permanent absorption and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no enforceable right with the petitioner to be permanently absorbed. However, since they have already rendered service in 1991 till 1999 the State Govt. may consider their case for absorption on transfer.
9. With the above preamble, we now examine the present case. It is not in dispute that the applicant has completed a normal period of four/five years before he has been repatriated to his parent department. The only question to be considered is whether there is any bias/prejudice on the part of the respondents in having repatriated the applicant. Mr. Pathak has tried to argue that since the applicant has detected a number cases of corruption involving various influential persons the department has taken action to ease him out of the CBI so that those cases may not be pursued. In support he has cited the case against Mr. Purshottam Teripuri, Assistant Director, Income Tax involving of Rs. 3.3 cores, Mr. Ramesh Chandra, IAS Officer, and the then Administrative Officer, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The respondents have stoutly denied the allegation of bias/prejudice on their part and have stated that the cases are still under investigation and this is a normal part of an Inspector who is working with the CBI to report such cases and therefore these cases have no relation with his repatriation. As already observed in para 9 (supra) a deputationist has neither any right to continue on deputation beyond the period allowed by the borrowing department or lending department and can be repatriated at any time even earlier in exigencies of public service. As regards the allegations of bias etc. as made out by the Mr. Pathak with reference to the cases cited by him we consider that these are part of the normal function of the Inspectors who work in such organisations and it is difficult to link the question of repatriation with the finalisation of such cases which can linger on for a long time. Moreover, continuance on deputation is a matter which lies purely within the administrative powers of the lending and borrowing department and the Courts/Tribunals would not interfere in such matters unless there are grave cases of proved malafide on the part of the respondents. We have examined the judgment relied upon by Mr. Pathak in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Ors. and find that in the above matter the question pertained to the deputation of an employee (Engineer) of a Govt. Undertaking sent on deputation to another Government undertaking in accordance with the rules of the borrowing undertaking. He had opted for absorption within the permitted time limit in accordance with the absorption rules. His case was recommended to the Head quarters but the Head office remained silent and stopped the payment of deputation allowance after the expiry of maximum period and instead of repatriating him, continued to retain him. There was nothing on record to show that he was not fit for absorption and therefore, in such cases the borrowing undertaking’s omission to pass an appropriate order did not affect the deputationist’s right to be considered for absorption. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that he stood absorbed from the date of his discontinuance of his absorption allowance on the basis of statutory rules as well as policy of the borrowing undertaking. In the instant case, however, the facts are entirely different in as much as that the applicant already stands repatriated to his parent department and therefore, no presumption of the nature as indicated above in the aforesaid judgment can be raised in the present case. As far as the reason for not accepting the request, we would like to point out that the case referred to above pertained to deputation of an employee from one Govt. undertaking to another Govt. undertaking while here is a case of an employee from one department to another department and therefore the judgment relied upon by Mr. Pathak is of no avail.
10. As regards the examples of few other employees namely, Mr. G.P. Thomas and Mr. Jitendra singh who according to Mr. Pathak have retained for much longer period and have been either relieved after 7 years or have been retained after 7 years, we would like to point out that no details of such cases have been produced before us and therefore, we do not consider necessary to go into the propriety or other wise of retention or repatriation of these employees. Deputation/absorption, is not being a matter of right we are not inclined to go into the merits of the claims of others where they are retained beyond a certain period for they are repatriated after much longer period and therefore, the claim of the applicant who stands repatriated to the parent department has no legs to stand on.
11. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the O.A. and consider that the same deserves to be rejected.
12. The O.A. is accordingly, rejected. No order as to costs.