Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shlok Bhardwaj vs M/O Agriculture on 21 August, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.2114/2017
New Delhi, this the 21th day of August, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Shlok Bhardwaj
S/o Shri M.L. Upadhyay
Earlier Director
Department of Agriculture & Co-operation
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-1. ..Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Medhanshu Tripathi)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Co-
operation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Establishment Officer, Department of Personnel &
Training (DOPT), North Block, New Delhi.
3. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training
(DOPT), North Block, New Delhi. ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:-
The applicant was initially appointed in the Indian Engineering Service in 1995. In the year 2015, he was included in the list of officers, selected in the Central 2 OA No.2114/2017 Staffing Scheme. It is from this list, that the officers are sent on deputation to various departments. Through order dated 19.06.2015, the applicant was sent on deputation to the Ministry of Agriculture for a period of five years or until further orders, whichever is earlier. He held various positions in that organisation.
2. Through the order dated 26.05.2017, the Department of Personnel and Training repatriated him to his parent department before completion of five years term. It is also mentioned that the applicant would become entitled for Central Deputation only after 16.06.2023. This resulted in addition of three years cooling off period to the one, which the applicant was subjected to. The aggregate of his cooling off period became six years. The said order is challenged in this OA.
3. The applicant contends that the order of deputation was clear in its purport to the effect that it is for a term of five years and without assigning any reason, much less any notice, the deputation was cancelled half way through, and that it would add stigma to his career. He further contends that there 3 OA No.2114/2017 was absolutely no basis for extending the cooling off period.
4. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that ever since the applicant joined the place of deputation, he was not able to carry the establishment with him and there were several complaints against him; particularly from women employees. It is stated that the applicant does not have any vested right to remain on deputation, much less for a particular term. It is also stated that the cooling off period was extended in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
5. We heard Shri Medhanshu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. On being considered for inclusion in the Central Staffing Scheme, the applicant was sent on deputation to the first respondent-department as Director. The order itself was very clear in its purport. It was mentioned that the period of deputation shall be five years, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. In the normal course, the deputation was to end on 4 OA No.2114/2017 completion of five years. However, the applicant was repatriated to his parent department much earlier.
7. The plea of the applicant that he is entitled to remain on deputation for five years, cannot be accepted. The reason is that basically no employee can have any vested right to be sent on deputation. It is always in the discretion, not only of the borrowing department but also of the lending department, to decide whether or not to send or take an employee on deputation. Secondly, even where a definite period of deputation is mentioned, much would depend upon the circumstances that are obtaining in the organization to which the employee is deputed. The deputation can be cut short either at the instance of the borrowing department or the lending department or on the request of the employee himself. As long as it is not by way of stigma, the employee cannot have any specific grievance in matters of this nature.
8. In the instant case, the impugned order does not spell out anything adverse against the applicant. He drew an inference and felt that it would add stigma to his career. Across the Bar, learned counsel for the 5 OA No.2114/2017 respondents stated that once the order does not spell out anything of that nature, the apprehension of the applicant cannot be said to be well placed. Though in the counter affidavit certain facts were mentioned, we do not treat them as holding good, for the purpose of this limited adjudication.
9. In the precedents relied upon by the applicant, the observations are in a way contrary to what is pleaded herein. Nowhere in those judgments, it was held as a clear principle of law that once an employee is sent on deputation, he must be continued at the place for the specified period.
10. One aspect, as regards which, the applicant has a genuine grievance is that the cooling off period referable to him is extended by three years while the period of deputation was reduced, the cooling off period was correspondingly increased. This is not a case where the applicant wanted to come back or to be repatriated before completion of term of deputation. Once the order does not mention anything objectionable, which can be attributed to the applicant, the premature 6 OA No.2114/2017 repatriation should not result in curtailing his rights in his parent department.
11. We, therefore, partly allow the OA upholding the impugned order insofar as it repatriates the applicant, but setting aside that part of the order which has the effect of extending his cooling off period. The cooling off period which is otherwise applicable to the applicant in the usual course shall however, remain.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member(A) Chairman /vb/