Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ashok Kumar Vashisht vs Union Of India Through on 7 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
O. A. No.1735 of 2011
Reserved on : 24th April, 2012
Pronounced on: 07th May, 2012
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA, ACTING CHAIRMAN
HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A)
Shri Ashok Kumar Vashisht
s/o late Shri Brahm Jeet Vashisht,
R/o H.No. 83, Yadav Park Extension,
Najafgarh Road, Nangloi,
Delhi. Applicant
( By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
National Investigation Agency,
4th Floor, Splendor Forum,
Jasola, District Centre,
New Delhi.
3. Assistant Inspector (PCA)
National Investigation Agency,
4th Floor, Splendor Forum,
Jasola, District Centre,
New Delhi.
4. Ram Nath Bhardwaj,
Consultant,
National Investigation Agency,
4th Floor, Splendor Forum,
Jasola, District Centre,
New Delhi.
5. Director General of Police,
Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Mahe Zehra for Shri Hilal Haider)
: O R D E R :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda:
Shri Ashok Kumar Vashisht, the applicant in the OA, joined as Junior Assistant on 05.02.2009 with Andhra Pradesh Police and was promoted there as Senior Assistant on 27.05.2004 and he was posted in the 13th Battalion of APPSP, Mancherial. In response to the advertisement of National Investigating Agency (NIA in short) issued in April 2010 to fill up posts of Sections Officer (S.O.), he applied for the said post. The said advertisement/Circular inter alia indicated that the applications should be routed through proper channel accompanying the copy of documents like Bio-data, Annual Confidential Reports for five years, Disciplinary/Vigilance Clearance/Integrity Certificate and details of major and minor penalties imposed during the last ten years. It is the case of the applicant that Inspector General of Police (PCA) in his letter dated 25.08.2010 (page 18) addressed to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh informed that as the applicant was willing to join NIA at Hyderabad on deputation basis as Section Officer, and as there was no post of S.O./Office Superintendent, if he was willing to be posted anywhere in India as S.O., his induction as S.O. in NIA on deputation basis, initially for a period of three years on deputation would be considered. The said letter also indicated that NOC/Disc./Vigilance Clearance Certificate etc. and ACR Grading for last five years along with other required documents/information to be forwarded in the enclosed format to consider applicants suitability. Vide letter dated 15.09.2010 (page 19), the NIA was informed that the instructions were issued to the Unit Officer to get the willingness of the applicant. On receipt of the letter dated 06.12.2010 from the Director General of Police, A.P. along with the applicants nomination, the NIA selected him for induction in the NIA on deputation basis for a period of three years against a vacant post of S.O. at NIA Headquarters, and the NIA letter dated 30.12.2010 (page-20) inter alia indicated that during the period of deputation, he would be governed by the standard terms and conditions of deputation as laid down in the Government of India DOP&T OM No. 2/29/91-Estt. Pay-II dated 05.01.1994 as amended from time to time. The NIA also informed in the said letter that if the applicant was cleared from the vigilance angle, his deputation order should be issued and be relieved to join the NIA. The Director General of Police, AP requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, informing about the applicants selection for appointment on deputation as S.O. in NIA and sought permission to depute him, vide their letter dated 18.01.2011. Ultimately, the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its letter dated 08.02.2011 permitted the applicants deputation. On 15.02.2011, vide the proceedings of the Additional Director General of Police (Personnel), Andhra Pradesh, ordered the deputation of the applicant to NIA for a period of three years as per the terms and conditions laid in the G.O.P. No.10, Finance and Planning (FW.FR-II) Department dated 22.01.1993 and was also directed that the applicant would be governed by standard terms and conditions of deputation as laid by Government of India. On the basis of the above communication received from Government of Andhra Pradesh, the NIA issued an Office Order No. 114 of 2011 dated 14.03.2011 intimated about the joining of the applicant as S.O. in the office of Director General, NIA on 09.03.2011. It was also intimated that his deputation would be governed by the standard terms and conditions of the deputation as per the DOP&T guidelines. It is the case of the applicant that after joining the post of S.O. in NIA, he has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and capabilities. It is his case that he did not agree with the wrong advice of the fourth respondent, who even rebuked the applicant on sending the files directly to the third respondent and threatened him that if the applicant ignored him, he would oust the applicant from NIA. On one occasion, when he objected on the issue that clerical staff could not be posted against the technical post of DEO, the fourth respondent raised the said issue and took upon himself to ensure that continuance of the applicant in NIA should not be there. The fourth respondent got furious when he came to know about the details of his appointment as Consultant for a specific period as stipulated by the higher authority and informed the applicant that he would take steps to oust him. It is further alleged by the applicant that despite the completion of fourth respondents tenure as Consultant, he was continuing in the same post and managed to issue an adverse order against the applicant. In the background of these developments, it is alleged by the applicant that the second respondent issued the impugned order dated 21.04.2011 by which the applicant was repatriated to his parent office in AP Police. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has instituted the instant OA.
2. Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, would contend that the applicant having not been given the mandatory advance notice of three months, there is a violation of standard terms and conditions of deputation as specified in Government of India OM dated 17.06.2010, which is the latest OM in modification of earlier OM dated 05.01.1994. He drew our attention to para 9 of the said OM to say that when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of a deputationist and the services could be so returned only after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending organization and the employee concerned. Having not given such a notice, first and second respondents have violated the standard terms and conditions of deputation. It is further contended that the respondent-NIA has not even informed the Andhra Pradesh Police about the said impugned order. Therefore, Shri Bhardwaj submits that the action of the respondents being violative of the terms and conditions is also arbitrary in violating the principles envisaged in the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urges that the OA should be allowed and applicant should be allowed to complete his three years deputation term in NIA. In this regard, he places his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 394 in the matter of Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors. and (2007) 6 SCC 276 in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Shardindu.
3. Opposing the contentions raised by the applicant in the OA, the respondents no. 1 to 4 have submitted their reply affidavit on 20.07.2011. In the said reply affidavit, the respondents have taken the stand that the applicant while posted with Andhra Pradesh Police, sent his bio-data without completing the information called for in the advertisement for consideration of induction in NIA on the analogous post as S.O. The NIA received an advance copy of his application on 09.08.2010 on the basis of which the second respondent requested the fifth respondent to make available the service particulars in respect of the applicant in the prescribed proforma containing No Objection Certificate/Disciplinary/ Vigilance Clearance/ACR Grading for last five years including the details of major/minor punishment imposed on the applicant during the last ten years, but the same were not received from the fifth respondent. However, the fifth respondent in his letter dated 06.11.2010 informed the second respondent that deputation of the applicant to NIA would be considered only after Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the same. It is stated that though the applicant joined on 09.03.2011 in NIA, he submitted his Last Pay Certificate (LPC) for drawal and disbursement of his pay, but the second respondent did not receive any official communication regarding applicants service particulars in the prescribed proforma namely No Objection Certificate/Disciplinary/ Vigilance Clearance/ACR Grading for last five years including the details of major/minor punishment imposed on the applicant during the last ten years. The respondents noticed from the LPC that he was drawing much less pay than the S.O. in the NIA and as a result of which a doubt arose in the minds of the respondents. Therefore, they sought more information including the Service Book of the applicant, vide letter dated 23.03.2011. Thereafter, the applicant himself submitted his Service Book to the NIA on 24.03.2011 and he initiated a Note dated 24.03.2011 wherein it was stated by the applicant that he had brought his Service Book from APPSP, which he received on 04.03.2011. It was, therefore, noted by the respondents that he kept the Service Book with him unauthorizedly from 04.03.2011 to 24.03.2011 to hide certain facts relating to his chequered service records, which would otherwise deny him the deputation to NIA. It is further alleged by the respondents that the applicant without showing the duplicate Service Book to the concerned officer of the NIA returned the same to his parent department, which was improper. It is further contended by Ms. Mahe Zehra counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the respondents, that the applicant did not have satisfactory performance in his parent organization even during probation period and had been awarded punishment on 11.05.2009 by imposing a penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years w.e.f. 28.07.2007, which was later on modified to stoppage of one increment. Further, he has been awarded censure by the DIG for his gross negligence of duty. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants suitability would have been decided properly had these facts been sent by the concerned authorities of Andhra Pradesh Police to NIA. In the absence of the said information before his selection, the applicant was considered unsuitable for NIA and he was, therefore, rightly repatriated. It was contended that there was no need to issue a notice as the applicants retention has been vitiated as explained by her. It was clarified that the impugned order clearly indicates that he has been repatriated on administrative grounds. Thus, the respondents have sought the dismissal of the OA on the above grounds.
4. The applicant has filed the rejoinder on 21.10.2011 and has raised same or similar grounds taken by him in the Original Application. However, he has stated in the rejoinder that there was no single adverse entry in his Service Book nor any major punishment was awarded to him. Only two minor punishments were awarded to him, which he had indicated to the NIA. Further, on the issue of analogous post held in the parent department by the applicant it had been averred that the post on which the applicant was working in his parent department was analogous to the S.O./Office Superintendent in NIA as the duties and responsibilities including the prescribed qualifications are equivalent in both the organizations.
5. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the pleadings. Before we dwell on the issues raised by the applicant, it would be appropriate for us to note that when the case came up at the admission stage on 12.05.2011, the impugned order was stayed while issuing notice to the respondents in following terms:-
Inter alia contends that the applicant came on the post of Section Officer on deputation. Clause 3 of the appointment letter stipulates that the period of deputation of the applicant shall be governed by the standard terms and conditions of deputation as laid down in the Govt. of India DOP&T OM dated 05.01.1994 as amended from time to time. The aforesaid OM came to be amended on 17.06.2010, copy whereof is enclosed as Annex A-10. Clause 9 of the same reads as follows:-
9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre. Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/ foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationists, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/Department and the employee concerned. Counsel further contends that the deputation period of the applicant of 3 years has been curtailed without putting him to notice as required and he has been repatriated only after 2 months of joining the post.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 27.05.2011.
Meanwhile, order repatriating the applicant shall remain stayed. Process DASTI The interim order as passed above has been continuing since then.
6. At this stage it would be appropriate for us to note the settled position in law relating to deputation and repatriation. Deputation precedes the repatriation. In service jurisprudence, deputation is resorted to in public interest to meet exigencies of public service. Deputation is a tripartite agreement as held by Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Versus Inder Singh [1997 - 8- SCC- 372], based on voluntary consent of the principal employer to lend the service of his employee, which decision has to be accepted by the borrowing Department/ employer and also involves the consent of the employee. Generally the deputation is the assignment of an employee of one Department/cadre to another Department/ cadre and the deputation subsists so long as parties to tripartite agreement adhere to the same. The moment this tripartite agreement is disturbed or vitiated or repudiated, the employee would have no legally enforceable right to continue to complete the agreed period of his deputation. The Honourable Supreme Court in Ratilal B. Soni & Others versus State of Gujarat & Others [1990 (Supp) SCC, 243] held that an employee on deputation can be reverted to his parent cadre at any time, who would have no right to be absorbed on the post of deputation. In Kunal Nanda versus Union of India & Another [AIR 2000 SC 2076] the Honourable Apex Court has reiterated its earlier decisions observing that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right for such a person to continue on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. A Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurinder Pal Singh versus State of Punjab [2005 (1) SLR 629], after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex court in Kunal Nandas case (supra), Ratilal B. Sonis case (supra), and Rameshwer Parshad versus Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited [1999 (5) SLR 203 (SC)] has held that a deputationist would have no vested right to continue in the borrowing department till the completion of the stipulated period of deputation and the deputation being a tripartite contract, can be continued only if all the parties like it to continue.
7. Honourable Apex Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India [AIR -2000 SC 2076]decided on 24-4-2000 held as follows:-
6. On the legal submissions made also there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.
8. Honourable Apex Court in the case of Union of India Versus V. Ramakrishnan and Others [2005-8-SC-394] also observed as follows:-
32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post...... "When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice.
9. The applicant was selected by the NIA for the S.O. post for the tenure of 3 years. The question arises whether the respondents have the authority to terminate the tripartite agreement of deputation. It is noted that the very order communicating his selection provide for premature termination of deputation and consequential repatriation. Let us examine the DOP&T Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010 which amends the DOP&T O.M. No.2/29/91-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 05.01.1994 which has been informed to the applicant. Para 9 of the said O.M. dated 17.06.2010 reads thus:
9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre. Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/Department and the employee concerned.
10. In view of the above provisions in the DOP&T O.M. dated 17.06.2010, we have no doubt that the premature repatriation of the applicant is, therefore, admissible as per the above policy. The respondents have issued the following Office Order No.205/2011 dated 21.04.2011 in repatriating the applicant:OFFICE ORDER NO. 205/2011
PART-A Shri Ashok Kumar Vasisht, who has joined NIA (HQ), New Delhi on deputation from Andhra Pradesh Police as Office Superintendent on 09.03.2011 (forenoon) vide this Office Order no. 114/2011 dated 14.03.2011 is hereby repatriated to his parent cadre i.e. Andhra Pradesh Police on administrative grounds, with immediate effect.
PART-B Consequent upon repatriation to his parent cadre, Shri Ashok Kumar Vasisht, Office Superintendent stands relieved of his duties in NIA (HQ), New Delhi with effect from the afternoon of 29.04.2011 with directions to report for duty to the Commandant, 15th Bn, ASPS, B.Gangaram, Sathupally, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh.
This issues with the approval of Director General, NIA.
11. The case of the applicant was that he was appointed on the post on deputation basis for a period of three years and the same could not be curtailed without granting him three months notice. Moreover, he has alleged malafides against the 4th respondent. The position as narrated above undisputedly brings out that the tenure of deputation can be curtailed but the settled legal position in the subject lays the ratio that the order of deputation curtailment must be simplicitor and the grounds of the curtailment should not be stigmatic or punitive. Even if the grounds for repatriation is stigmatic/punitive the order of repatriation must precede proper enquiry and principles of natural justice which means that an opportunity should be provided to the officer concerned to defend himself properly.
12. It is noted that except very generic allegations of malafide the applicant has not established his allegations against the 4th respondent. Thus, we do not find any reason to accept the applicants grounds are the malafides. Thus, the said Office Order is not punitive. It is also trite that the grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance or ineffectiveness of the officer concerned do not become stigmatic/punitive. As per the deputation policy, the applicant would have an indefeasible right to hold to the said post for such period as mentioned therein, and the same could not be curtailed except on grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. The learned counsel for the parties for their specific points placed their reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the V. Ramakrishnans case (supra). The order of deputation clearly specified a period of three years on the post the applicant was taken on deputation. Deputation is a tripartite agreement among the lending Department, the borrowing Department and the individual Officer. Thus the applicant has a right to remain on deputation, and simultaneously the NIA reserves the right also to revert such officers to their parent cadres at any time without assigning any reasons. This Tribunal in Sunil Krishna versus Union of India & Others (OA No.1729/2006 decided on 6.3.2007), held that the tenure deputation set out is subject to discretion of the Central Government to revert deputationist officers to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reason. If the applicant may derive the right to continue on normal deputation for a period of three years on the basis of the policy, the said normal deputation period would be subject to the discretion of the NIA to curtail the same. In so far as judgment of the Honble Supreme in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra), is concerned, it may be seen that it deals with only providing of a period of deputation, without there being any right to curtail it without assigning any reason. That apart, the Supreme Court has clearly held that even if the tenure of a deputation is specified, an officer on deputation has no indefeasible right to hold to the said post. It is noted that the period of deputation should not ordinarily be curtailed except on just grounds. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court would apply where it is a straight case of providing a period of deputation without there being any right with the Government to curtail it. It is seen that the applicant has been repatriated on the administrative ground. We note that the administrative ground is the unsuitability of the applicant as the facts relevant for his selection have not been placed before the NIA before his deputation was ordered.
13. Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of H.C. Prem Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others [2010 (1) SLR 126] considered a case with the grounds of ineffectiveness and dismissed the Civil Writ Petition vide judgment delivered on 27.11.2009. The grounds for cutting short the deputation period like unsuitability and unsatisfactory performance are not exhaustive. The same have been stated only by way of illustration as is clearly mentioned in the decision. The law as settled appears to be that when the period of deputation is specified, the same may be curtailed on the ground that the employee is unsuitable for the concerned job. In this context the Honble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Versus J.P. Verma & Another (supra) relied upon the observations made in its earlier decision in K.H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra [(1971) 1 SCC, 792], which read as follows:
17. The order of reversion simplicitor will not amount to a reduction in rank or a punishment. A Government servant holding a temporary post and having lien on his substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service. A person holding a temporary post may draw a salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary cannot be said to have any penal consequence. Therefore though the government has right to revert a Government servant from the temporary post to substantive post, the matter has to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors are to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of accident of service in which a person sent from the substantive post to a temporary job has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion against his character or integrity or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment. Reversion by itself will not be a stigma. On the other hand, if there is evidence that the order of reversion is not a pure accident of service but an order in the nature of punishment, Article 311 will be attracted.
14. The position of law is that the order of repatriation can be questioned even by lifting the veil, if the same is an outcome of some aspersions against the employee and also if the same is mala fide, we have to lift the veil in the case. With a view to find out the reason behind the repatriation of the applicant, we had called for original Service Book, which have indeed been made available to us. On a close perusal of the Service Book of the applicant placed before us by the respondents, it could be seen that the applicant was placed under suspension as Senior Assistant on 20.10.2004 for committing irregularities in Pay & G.L. Section including misbehaving with the Superintendent-A, insulting him before a senior staff and thereafter went on casual leave w.e.f. 7th to 14th September, 2004. It is also noticed that applicants probation was extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 27.05.2005 (AN) for his unsatisfactory performance and he was advised to improve his work. Subsequently, his probation was declared as complete and satisfactory w.e.f. 26.11.2005 (AN). Further, it is seen that he was initially punished of RTSP by two stages for a period of two years with effect on future increments and pension but the same, on appeal, was modified as RTSP by one stage for a period of one year without effect. Further, it is seen that the applicant has received certain letters of commendation on 24.06.2010, 26.04.2010, 31.07.2010, 15.07.2010 and 09.02.2011. However, he has also been awarded censure by the D.I.G. (W-R) Warangal vide order dated 20.07.2010 for applicants gross neglect of duty for not handing over the cash book while proceeding with the course on Stores Managements from 15.09.2009 to 19.09.2009 and his suspension period was treated as leave to which he was eligible.
15. From all the above facts disclosed from the pleadings and Service Book, it transpires that the applicant having kept the Service Book with him and not presenting the same at the time of joining to the competent authority, the background of the applicant could not be noticed by the respondents as a result of which he was allowed to join. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant was found unsuitable on two counts (i) his past record and performance with punishments could not make him suitable for the post of S.O. in NIA and (ii) he was not holding the analogous post with same pay scale in his parent department. Even after lifting the veil of the premature repatriation of the applicant to his parent cadre, it is noticed that his repatriation is not punitive in nature as there was no misconduct in NIA which has triggered the repatriation of the applicant. On the other hand, concealment of certain important facts and non-submission of the Service Book to the competent authority and when the same was given to the competent authority, he was found unsuitable for the post of S.O. in NIA.
16. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that proper notice could have been given before the premature repatriation. By not giving the notice as per the guidelines, the respondents have violated their own guidelines and as such the repatriation order is illegal.
17. We have given our considerable thought to the said contention. The applicants repatriation is not on the basis of any other aspect except the fact that his selection on deputation has been done by the respondents without proper verification of applicants antecedents and background, as the applicant himself has not furnished the detailed relevant information in his application form except casually mentioning about his two minor punishments. The respondents have found from his Service Book belatedly submitted by the applicant that he was not suitable to be posted to NIA as S.O. He was also note on the analogous post in his parent organization. The basic selection having been flawed, there was no necessity for the respondents to issue any notice to him for premature repatriation to his parent department. The impugned order clearly indicates that the applicant has been repatriated to his parent cadre i.e. Andhra Pradesh Police on administrative grounds with immediate effect. The administrative grounds have already been indicated by the respondents. We find that those administrative grounds are basically on the improper selection adopted without adequate information of the applicant by which he has been selected to the post of S.O. in NIA and such administrative grounds do not require the respondents to issue any notice as the selection itself has been vitiated. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that by not granting any time and even not issuing the applicant a notice before the issue of the impugned order dated 21.04.2011. the respondents have not committed any irregularity as the selection itself was considered to be bad as the full facts of the applicant were not available before the respondents at the time of selection. During the final hearing, the learned counsel placed before us a copy of the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Personnel) of Andhra Pradesh Government wherein the applicants deputation was cancelled with directions to him to report for duty to the Commandant 15th Bn. APSP, Khamman.
18. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and guided by the law on the subject of deputation/ repatriation, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not been able to establish his case and we do not find any reason to interfere in the repatriation and relieving order passed by the respondents on 21.04.2011. Resultantly, the present Original Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. It is pertinent to note here that by virtue of the stay order granted by the Tribunal on 12.05.2011, the applicant has been continuing in the said post of S.O. in NIA for about one year. As the OA is being dismissed, the stay order passed on 12.05.2011 is vacated. In typical nature of the case, we do not pass any order as to the costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (S.C. Sharma) Member (A) Acting Chairman /naresh/