Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sudhir Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 September, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.3395/2018
New Delhi, this the 12th day of September, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Sudhir Kumar, S/o Shri Bajrang Dass,
R/o 55-L, CBI Colony,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
(Group 'B'), (Deputy Superintendent Police, CBI)
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Through its Director,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar )
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :-
The applicant is borne in the cadre of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Inspector. He came on deputation to CBI in the year 2013, through office order dated 29.05.2013, as Inspector, for a period of five years.
2. In the year 2014, the CBI initiated steps for appointments to the post of Deputy Superintendent of 2 OA No.3395/2018 Police (DSP) on deputation/absorption. The applicant took a chance in that, but was not successful. The exercise was repeated in the year 2016 and the DPC which met, found none of the candidates to be upto the mark, for appointment on deputation. However, it recommended the name of the applicant and two others for being appointed as DSP on deputation till the left over period of deputation mentioned in the order dated 29.05.2013.
3. The applicant contends that the CBI itself sought the extension of his deputation by one more year and almost every authority connected with the matter has accorded approval. Apprehending that he may be repatriated before expiry of the one year extended period, the applicant filed this OA seeking reliefs ranging from the one of his absorption into CBI, to the one against repatriation.
4. The applicant contends that though his initial period of deputation of five years has been completed, rights have accrued to him with his appointment as DSP, to continue for a reasonable period, on deputation. It is also pleaded that the respondents themselves have initiated proposal for extension of his deputation by one 3 OA No.3395/2018 year and there is absolutely no basis for his being repatriated, at this stage.
5. On behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that the applicant does not have any right to remain in CBI once the period of deputation of five years is completed. It is also stated that though an effort was made to extend the deputation of the applicant, it did not materialise and the requirement of obtaining consent of UPSC for deputation beyond that period has also become necessary.
6. It is also pleaded that OA is not maintainable since the order of repatriation is not filed and that the applicant has already been relieved.
7. Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondents.
8. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the applicant as Inspector in CBI on deputation was for a period of five years from 29.05.2013. The applicant, no doubt, was appointed as DSP on deputation basis on the basis of recommendation of DPC. However, that was for the left over period of deputation of five years. The record 4 OA No.3395/2018 also discloses that an attempt was made to get the extension of his deputation, obviously, on account of his work in the organisation. However, through an order dated 07.09.2018, the respondents have repatriated the applicant to the parent organisation, and he was relieved on the same day. It is stated that attempts were made by the Organisation to serve the copy of the order of repatriation on the applicant, but he did not accept the same intentionally.
9. Whatever be the circumstances, under which the applicant came to be appointed as DSP on deputation, he could have successfully challenged the present repatriation, if any different period was mentioned in the order of appointment of DSP. In the order dated 28.04.2017, it was clearly mentioned that the applicant is appointed as DSP on deputation basis "from the date of assumption of charge of the post of Dy.SP and upto 27.05.2018 i.e. approved tenure of 05 years or till further orders, whichever is earlier." It means that the period of deputation for the post of Inspector was treated as the basis, and the appointment as DSP was for the remaining part of five years. Things would have been different altogether, had there been any extension. The record 5 OA No.3395/2018 also discloses that respondents did make an effort to get extension but it could not materialise.
10. It is well settled that an officer who is on deputation does not have any right to remain in the deputation post once the period of deputation has expired. The applicant has also been relieved from the duty. We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, we direct that the respondents shall permit the applicant to retain the quarter allotted to him, till the end of the academic year, on the normal terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member(A) Chairman
'rk'