Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Mohan Lal Meena vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 29 October, 2019
1 OA 200/00211/2019
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00211/2019
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 29th day of October, 2019
HON'BLE MR. NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mohan Lal Meena, S/o Shri Prem Chand Meena, aged about 46
years, Lastly posted as Director, Department of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare, Government of M.P, Bhopal 462001
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr. Advocate, assisted by
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Training, North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. State of M.P. through Principal Secretary, G.A.D, Vallabh
Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 462001.
3. Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla (IAS), currently posted as Director,
Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of
M.P, Bhopal 462001
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Surendra Pratap Singh for respondent
No.1, S/Shri Akash Choudhary and Aditya Narayan Shukla for
respondent No.2 and Shri S.K. Nandy for respondent No.3)
(Date of reserving order : 30.09.2019)
ORDER
By Navin Tandon, AM.
The applicant, an IAS officer of Manipur of 2001 batch, is aggrieved that without considering his inter cadre transfer, he is being repatriated from Madhya Pradesh to Manipur cadre vide Page 1 of 26 2 OA 200/00211/2019 order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure A-1) and 06.02.2019 (Annexure A-2.).
2. The applicant has made the following submissions in this O.A:
2.1 He is an IAS officer of the 2001 batch of Manipur Tripura cadre.
2.2 While he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at District Ukhrul at Manipur in the year 2005-06, he was in-charge of awarding of certain work to the eligible agencies under the Border Area Development Programme (BADP). The said work was awarded by him to an agency which was found most suitable. 2.3 At the relevant time, one Shri A. Aza, Shri Danny Shaiza and Shri W. Keising werr the Members of Legislative Assembly Chingai, Ukhrul and Phungeyar Constituency respectively. The said MLAs of Manipur State were having close nexus with the militant group of Manipur, namely National Socialist Council of Nagalim-IssaMuivah (NSCN-IM).
2.4 The said MLAs exerted undue political pressure on the applicant to award BADP work to the agency of their choice, Page 2 of 26 3 OA 200/00211/2019 which was not in public interest. Therefore, he declined to succumb to the illegal demands of the MLAs.
2.5 On 28.01.2006, Shri A. Aza, MLA, Chingai entered the residence of the applicant on 28.01.2006. He snatched a cheque from the Planning Staff member issued in favour of the agency, which was awarded the BADP work and unduly pressurized the applicant to withdraw the BADP work from the said agency and award the same to the agency of their choice. On being resisted by the applicant, the said MLA and his party workers physically assaulted and beaten the applicant in his official bungalow in front of his family members, his security personnel and office staff. This incident was promptly reported to the Superintendent of Police (Annexure A-5) and Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on 28.01.2006 (Annexure A-6).
2.6 The atrocities and illegal action of the MLAs did not end there and on 30.01.2006 again Shri A. Aza, along with Shri W. Keising and Shri Danny Shaiza, came to the residence of the applicant along with their party members along with Shri Honreisang, Caretaker (Head of NSCN-IN of Ukhrul Region).
They threatened the applicant of dire consequences in case the work of BADP awarded by him is not withdrawn and then awarded Page 3 of 26 4 OA 200/00211/2019 to the agency of their choice. The persons accompanying MLAs assaulted and beaten the staff of the applicant in front of the applicant. The applicant along with his family members were kept hostage from 10 AM to 5 PM in his official residence. They prepared cheques and work orders forcefully and forced the applicant to sign the orders and cheques. However, the applicant frozen the bank account immediately on next day by morning. This incidence was also reported to the Chief Secretary, Manipur on 31.01.2006 (Annexure A-7). In this letter to the Chief Secretary, it has been mentioned that he is receiving calls with threat to life. 2.7 The applicant took leave and met the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India. He submitted his application dated 15.02.2006 (Annexure A-8) to the Chief Secretary of Manipur for inter-cadre transfer. Such inter-cadre transfer is allowed under Rule 5 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (Annexure A-9) (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1954') and policy dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure A-10).
2.8 The Government of Manipur (Annexure A-11) and Tripura (Annexure A-12) gave the No Objection regarding the inter-cadre transfer of the applicant Page 4 of 26 5 OA 200/00211/2019 2.9 After protracted correspondence with several States and on receipt of several reports from the IB, respondent No.1 wrote to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 30.10.2009 (Annexure A-15) to consider and convey the consent of inter-cadre transfer of the applicant to Madhya Pradesh. Government of Manipur in its communication dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure A-16) agreed to the proposed inter-cadre deputation on the ground of extreme threat to life in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1954. The respondent No.1 issued the notification dated 07.06.2010 for deputation to Madhya Pradesh for a period of three years. Even though the exercise to transfer the applicant out of Manipur should have been taken in the year 2006, but transfer orders were issued only in the year 2010. Several exercises of inter-cadre transfer have been cited of officers belonging to IAS, IPS and IFS. However, the applicant was not granted similar relief.
2.10 No objection for inter-cadre transfer was issued by the Government of Manipur on 15.07.2013 (Annexure A-21) and Madhya Pradesh on 07.08.2013 (Annexure A-20). 2.11 When no decision was taken by respondents regarding his inter-cadre transfer, the applicant approached this Tribunal in Original Application No.800/2013, wherein this Tribunal, vide its Page 5 of 26 6 OA 200/00211/2019 order dated 01.10.2013 (Annexure A-22), directed the respondents to take a decision on the inter-cadre transfer and till then the applicant may be permitted to continue on deputation in State of Madhya Pradesh.
2.12 The IB, in its reports have categorically reported that there is threat to life of the applicant and his family members. When no decision was taken on his inter-cadre transfer request, the applicant again approached this Tribunal in OA 200/401/2015, wherein this Tribunal, in its order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure A-25), observed that since the respondent (Union of India), in their reply dated 12.06.2015 have already submitted that the IB report dated 18.05.2015 in respect of the applicant will be put before the Committee constituted in DOPT to consider the inter-cadre transfer, the O.A was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the matter of inter-cadre transfer within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order, if not already decided, and communicate the same to the applicant.
2.13 Respondent No.1, vide its letter dated 10.06.2015 addressed to the applicant (through the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh) and copy to the Chief Secretary of Government Page 6 of 26 7 OA 200/00211/2019 of Manipur, Tripura and Madhya Pradesh, communicated that his inter-cadre transfer has not been recommended. The applicant states that this letter was never received by him. 2.14 Respondent No.1 has again written to Government of Manipur on 14.08.2018 (Annexure A-26) to communicate comments regarding threat perception to the life of the applicant. Government of Manipur, vide its letter dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure A-27) stated that the assessment of current threat level is subjective and it would be appropriate for the officer to return back to cadre. Further, Government of Manipur again wrote to the Union of India on 21.01.2019 (Annexure A-28) that as per the fresh report received from SP/CID (Special Branch), threat perception to the life of the applicant cannot be ruled out. 2.15 To the surprise of the applicant, respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure A-1), wherein the Government of Madhya Pradesh was requested to send the applicant to the parent cadre immediately. Accordingly, the Madhya Pradesh Government, vide its order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure A-2) relieved the applicant and respondent No.3 was given the additional charge of the post where the applicant was working vide order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure A-3).
Page 7 of 26
8 OA 200/00211/2019
3. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
"8. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:
The humble applicant in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to
(i) Quash the impugned orders dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure A-4), 31.01.2019 (Annexure A-1) and the two orders dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure A-2 & Annexure A-3) which are passed without considering various reports categorically showing the eminent threat to life which existed against the applicant and his family members.
(ii) To direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders with regard to the inter-cadre transfer of the applicant in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1954 and policy dated 08.11.2004 on the basis of various reports which reflect threat to the applicant and his family members, specifically when the parent state and the state of Madhya Pradesh both have accorded their consent.
(iii) To direct the respondent to consider granting all service benefits which the humble applicant deserves from the first date in the year 2006 when the eminent life threat arose for the first time and the applicant was forced to take leave from the service in view of the inaction on part of the respondent.
(iv) To grant any other relief deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) To hold that the continuance of the applicant in the State of M.P. after the initial period of deputation is not unauthorized and that consequently, the applicant is entitled Page 8 of 26 9 OA 200/00211/2019 for all benefits considering his continuity in service till the final disposal of this original application before the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the State of M.P."
4. The respondent No.1, in their counter reply have submitted as under:
4.1 The applicant initially applied for inter-cadre transfer to any other cadre on the grounds of threat to his life and also his family.
The matter was considered and on the basis of report of IB dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure R-1), wherein it was stated that there is no input to suggest any direct threat to his life, the proposal was not acceded to. However, later on, the applicant was granted inter- cadre deputation to Madhya Pradesh cadre. His approved tenure of inter-cadre deputation expired on 30.06.2013 but he continued on inter-cadre deputation on the basis of the orders of this Tribunal dated 01.10.2013 in OA No.800/2013.
4.2 The matter along with the Court's order was discussed in the Committee meetings held on 30.03.2015 and 02.04.2015, wherein it was directed that fresh IB report may be obtained and thereafter the case may be put before the Committee.
4.3 The IB, vide its ID dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure R-2), inter- alia stated that there is no fresh inputs to suggests NSCN/IM has Page 9 of 26 10 OA 200/00211/2019 reviewed or changed its stand/used with regard to applicant and other, threat to his life from the outfit persists. Meanwhile, officers of different services of his equivalent seniority are posted in the State Capital.
4.4 The proposal was again placed before the Committee in its meeting held on 28.05.2015, wherein the Committee perused the IB report and decided not to recommend his case for change of cadre to Madhya Pradesh. The Committee further directed that the possibility of having Shri Meena on central deputation may be explored, by waving of "cooling-off" period. The said decision was conveyed vide their letter dated 10.06.2015. 4.5 Regarding exploring the possibility of having applicant on Central Deputation, EO Division vide ID dated 12.06.2018 informed that as per para(s) 4 and 5 of the Consolidated Deputation Guidelines for All India Services, the maximum permissible deputation tenure is 7 years outside the cadres and there shall be a mandatory cooling-off after every period of deputation under Rule 6(1) and 6(2).
4.6 The State Government of Manipur vide their letter dated 28.12.2018 has stated that the applicant while posted as Page 10 of 26 11 OA 200/00211/2019 DC/Ukhrul, Manipur in 2006 had faced threat and thereafter, in June 2010 he went to Madhya Pradesh on inter cadre deputation. Since, the officer has been away from the cadre for very long period, assessment of current threat level is subjective and it would be appropriate for the officer to return back to cadre. 4.7 It is not correct to say that the request of applicant for his inter-cadre transfer on the grounds of threat to his life is pending with them. It appears that the officer is trying to divert issue of his overall stay without the consent of the competent authority. 4.8 In the meantime, another letter dated 21.01.2019 has been received from the State Government of Madhya Pradesh stating that the matter has been further examined by them and as per the fresh report received from SP/CID (Special Branch), the threat perception to the life of the applicant cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the State Government has no objection for extension of inter-cadre deputation. However, the State Government has not shared the reports prepared by the SP/CID (Special Branch). Thus, the O.A is devoid of merit and prays for dismissal of the same.
5. The reply of respondent No.2 has also been filed, wherein they have submitted as under:
Page 11 of 26
12 OA 200/00211/2019 5.1 The applicant was sent on inter-cadre deputation in terms of order dated 07.06.2010 of Union of India (respondent No.1). 5.2 The respondent No.1, vide letter dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure R-2/2), directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to immediately repatriate him to parent cadre. However, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide letter dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure R-
2/3), requested the Government of India for continuing the deputation for further period of one year in view of ensuing Assembly Election in November, 2013. Further, the Government of India has already communicated their decision on 10.06.2015 (Annexure R-2/4) for not recommending the case for inter-cadre transfer. In consequence of the letter dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure A-1), Government of Madhya Pradesh has already relieved the applicant vide letter dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure A-3).
6. Respondent No.3 has also filed his reply, wherein he has reiterated the stand of the State of Madhya Pradesh. His involvement in the case is only to the extent that he was directed to take the additional charge of the post, which was occupied by the applicant when the orders dated 06.02.2019 were issued. Page 12 of 26
13 OA 200/00211/2019
7. The applicant and respondent No.1 have filed additional pleadings in the form of rejoinder, additional rejoinder, additional reply, whereby, mainly their earlier stand has been reiterated.
8. On 08.03.2019, while issuing the notice, this Tribunal had directed the respondents not to take any coercive action against the applicant. However, after considering the reply of respondent No.2, on 10.04.2019, this Tribunal had not granted any interim relief. The applicant, thereafter, had approached Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.P.2046/2019, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 16.04.2019 had given the timelines to the respondent No.1 and applicant for filing reply and rejoinder and had requested this Tribunal to hear and decide the O.A on priority. Till then the order of this Tribunal dated 08.03.2019 was to remain in operation.
9. Heard the counsel of all the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant took us through the Rules of 1954 (Annexure A-9) and policy regarding change of cadre of All India Service Officers dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure A-10). Rule 5(2) of the Rules are regarding the transfer of officer from one Page 13 of 26 14 OA 200/00211/2019 cadre to another. Rule 6(1) is regarding deputation of an officer to Central Government or another State Government. 10.1 The policy guidelines regarding inter-cadre transfer have been issued with the approval of the Prime Minister, which inter- alia brings out that inter-cadre transfer can be carried out in, "extreme hardships", which includes threat to the life of an officer or his immediate family. When such a request is received, the Central Government shall have the genuineness of the request assessed by an independent Central agency. If the grounds of threat or health is found to be genuine, the Central Government may initially send the officer on a three years deputation to a State of its choice. The situation may be re-assessed after the three years period. If the situation so warrants, the Central Government may permanently transfer the officer to that State. 10.2 Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the point that the inter-cadre transfer under extreme hardship under Rule 5(2) has two steps namely; first a deputation for three years and then re- assessment.
10.3 The applicant faced hardship for almost four and half years while he was sitting at home for his request for inter-cadre transfer Page 14 of 26 15 OA 200/00211/2019 to be considered. The respondent No.1, vide its letter dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure A-15), has categorically asked the Government of Madhya Pradesh for inter-cadre transfer. Thereafter, on receiving the NOC from both Madhya Pradesh and Manipur Government, the applicant was sent for inter-cadre deputation to Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 07.06.2010. 10.4 Learned Sr. Advocate explained in detail that respondents Nos.1 & 2 are treating this to be a case of inter-cadre deputation under Rule 6(1), whereas the fact is that the applicant has been sent on deputation to Madhya Pradesh on deputation as the first stage towards inter-cadre transfer as per Rule 5(2) and as per the policy guidelines.
10.5 Since, respondent No.1 had not taken any decision regarding inter-cadre transfer, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the year 2013, wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated 01.10.2013, had directed the respondent-Union of India to take a decision on inter-cadre transfer, if not already taken and to pass appropriate order expeditiously and till then the applicant was to be posted and to continue on deputation in the cadre of Madhya Pradesh. Page 15 of 26
16 OA 200/00211/2019 10.6 The applicant was again forced to approach this Tribunal in the year 2015, wherein based on the reply dated 12.06.2015 of the respondents, the respondent-Government of India was directed to decide the matter of inter-cadre transfer within a period of two months', if not already decided.
10.7 Regarding the communication dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure A-4) by the respondent No.1, it has been categorically mentioned that the applicant was never served with communication by the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh through which the communication was said to be handed over to the applicant. Further, it is a case of misleading the Court, wherein on one hand, the respondents are giving a written reply on 12.06.2015 to this Tribunal that his case would be considered based on the IB report dated 18.05.2015, on the other hand, the letter communicating the fact that his case has not been recommended for inter-cadre transfer, which was issued on 10.06.2015.
10.8 The report of the IB dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure R-2) is very explicitly states that threat to his life from the outfit persists. In view thereof, this is a fit case for inter-cadre transfer. Page 16 of 26
17 OA 200/00211/2019 10.9 He places reliance on a decision of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3921/2010, decided on 30.08.2011 (Pankaj Kumar Pal, IAS vs. Union of India & Ors.), wherein, in a similar circumstances, the Principal Bench had allowed the O.A by granting relief to the applicant. It was mentioned by the learned Sr. Advocate that Shri Pankaj Kumar Pal was the Sub Divisional Officer in Ukhrul District and was an eye witness of untowards incidence that happened against the applicant. He further places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary vs. Dr. Jitendra Gupta and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9018.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the challenge to the order dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure A-4) is barred by limitation. He further averred that as per the IB report dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure R-2), there is no threat to the applicant. The same report has been considered by the Committee, who decided not to recommend his case for inter-cadre transfer. He also submitted that inter-cadre transfer is to be done in rarest of the rare cases as mentioned in Para 2(i) of the policy guidelines dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure A-10).
Page 17 of 26
18 OA 200/00211/2019 11.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also relied on the judgment of Pankaj Kumar Pal (supra). He read out Para 2 therein to say that the decision in the case of Pankaj Kumar Pal was very different as there was a severe threat to the life of Shri Pal. 11.2 He further distinguished the case of Dr. Jitendra Gupta (supra) and submitted that the petitioner therein was a victim of his own State Government and a false vigilance case was registered against him. It is not the case in the present O.A.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has stated that the NOC by Madhya Pradesh Government was given for inter-cadre transfer on 07.08.2013 (Annexure A-20). But once the request for inter-cadre transfer has not been recommended by respondent No.1, the same cannot be taken to the extent of perpetuity. 12.1 To a explicit question as to whether the letter dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure A-4) was communicated by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the applicant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the said letter was served to the applicant.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 has been made a party only because he was asked Page 18 of 26 19 OA 200/00211/2019 to take-over the additional responsibilities on the post of the applicant on 06.02.2019.
FINDINGS
14. Relevant Para of Rules of 1954 (Annexure A-9) are extracted below:
"5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Government concerned transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre."
6(1) A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government or under a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Government."
15. The Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure A-
10) issued by DoP&T is reproduced below:
"Subject: Change of Cadre of All India Service officers - policy regarding The undersigned is directed to say that the change of cadre of All India Service officers is governed by Rule 5(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and analogous Rules in the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, which is as follows:
"5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre"Page 19 of 26
20 OA 200/00211/2019
2. In recent practice, this Rules has been invoked only in cases of marriage between the All India Services(s) officers. There have been cases where following marriage one officer has moved to the cadre of his or her spouse. There have also been cases where both spouses have moved to a third cadre. The policy in this matter has been reviewed in detail and a view taken, with the approval of Prime Minister, as follows:
(i) Inter-cadre transfer shall continue to be permitted for members of All India Service Officers on marriage to another member of an All India Service, where the officer or officers concerned have sought a change. Inter cadre transfer shall also be permitted on grounds of extreme hardship in the rarest of cases.
(ii) Inter-cadre transfer shall not be permitted to the home State of the officer.
(iii) In cases of inter-cadre transfer on grounds of marriage, efforts should be made in the first instance to ensure that the cadre of one officer accepts his or her spouse.
(iv) Only in instances where both States have refused to accept the other spouse will the officers be considered for transfer by the Government of India to a third cadre subject to the consent of the Cadres concerned for such transfer.
(v) Inter-cadre transfer shall not be permitted to All India Services officers on marriage to an officer serving in a Central Service/State Service/Public Sector Undertaking/any other Organization.
(vi) 'Extreme hardship' for purposes of inter-cadre transfer, should be defined to include (a) threat to the life of the officer or his immediate family and (b) severe health problems to the officer or his immediate due to the climate or environment of the State to which he is allotted.
(vii) In cases of request on grounds of threat or health, the Central Government shall have the genuineness of the request Page 20 of 26 21 OA 200/00211/2019 assessed by an independent Central agency or group of at least two independent experts.
(viii) If a request on grounds of threat or health is found to be genuine, the Central Government may initially send the officer on a three years deputation to a State of its choice. The situation may be re-assessed after the three years period. If the situation so warrants, the Central Government may permanently transfer the officer to that State.
The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Environment and Forests are requested to consider all the requests for inter-cadre transfers of All India Service(s) officers in accordance with the above policy. All such requests shall be processed and after obtaining approval of the Minister in-charge, be submitted for the orders of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet."
16. Respondent No.1 has also issued an Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure RJ-2) regarding policy guidelines for inter-cadre deputation under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1954. The said policy guidelines mentioned that inter-cadre deputations are normally processed only in the case where individual officer has sought the deputation in view of the personal difficulties. However, no words like 'extreme hardship' or 'threat to life' are mentioned anywhere for inter-cadre deputation.
17. Perusal of the Rule 5(1) of Rules of 1954 and the policy therein very explicitly mentions the steps in Para 2 (vi)(vii)(viii) therein. While Para 2 (viii) specifically mentions that for the Page 21 of 26 22 OA 200/00211/2019 request on ground of threat is found to be genuine, the Central Government may initially send the officer on a three years deputation to a State of its choice. However, there is no corresponding rule in the Rules of 1954 to distinguish the deputation (prior to inter-cadre transfer) from inter-cadre deputation under Rule 6(1). Therefore, there is wide confusion amongst the respondent-Union of India as well as Government of Madhya Pradesh as to whether the applicant has come to Government of Madhya Pradesh on deputation prior to inter-cadre transfer under Rule 5(2) or under simple deputation under Rule 6(1).
18. Perusal of all communications by all the concerned namely; respondent No.1, respondent No.2 as well as Government of Manipur clearly mentions on the ground of "extreme threat to life". Therefore, it is safe to assume that this deputation is the first stage to inter-cadre transfer and is not deputation under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1954.
19. The order of this Tribunal dated 01.10.2013 and 18.06.2015 also clearly indicate that the respondent No.1 was directed to take decision regarding the inter-cadre transfer of the applicant. We are also in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for Page 22 of 26 23 OA 200/00211/2019 the applicant that in OA No.200/401/2015 filed in this Tribunal, the respondent-Government of India in their reply dated 12.06.2015, have submitted that IB report dated 18.05.2015 in respect of the applicant will be put before the Committee constituted in DoP&T to consider inter-cadre transfer. However, it has already issued its communication dated 10.06.2015 that the case of the applicant has not been recommended. The submission before this Tribunal and the final decision cannot be read harmoniously.
20. It is also not clear as to why respondent No.1 approached the Government of Manipur in August/September 2018 to find out regarding the threat perception to the life of the applicant. While they readily accepted the response of Government of Manipur in their communication dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure A-27) that "since the officer has been away from the cadre for very long period, assessment of current threat level is subjective and it would be appropriate for the officer to return back to cadre", they are suspect of the letter dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure A-28), wherein Government of Manipur has stated that the, "matter has been further examined by the State Government and as per the fresh report received from SP/CID (Special Branch), the threat Page 23 of 26 24 OA 200/00211/2019 perception to the life of Shri Mohan Lal Meena, IAS (MN:2001) cannot be ruled out". We find that rather unusual for respondent No.1 to say that the State Government of Manipur has not shared the said report prepared by the CID officials. If they are not satisfied, they had all the powers to ask for the same.
21. The respondent No.1, in their reply, have also stated that it is difficult to understand as to how the threat perception to the life of the official has been established when the officer is away from the State for more than eight years.
22. The IB report dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure R-2) in its concluding Para has stated thus:
"4. As already conveyed vide DIB UO No. IV/8(52)/2014-907 dated July 21, 2014, threat to the life of Mohan Lal Meena can not be ruled out, keeping in view the general reputation of NSCN/IM, particularly its revengeful attitude towards their detractors/perceived detractors even after lapse of sufficiently long period of time. During early 2008 also, some people, including a few local NSCN/IM leaders, were reportedly found enquiring about the whereabouts of Meena. There is no fresh input to suggest that NSCN/IM has reviewed or changed its stand/views with regard to Mohan Lal Meena and, thus, threat to his life from the outfit persists."
22.1 From the above, it is very clear that the IB has categorically stated that threat to the life of the applicant persists. Page 24 of 26
25 OA 200/00211/2019
23. The incidence which happened with the applicant has not been disputed. The IB in its report has also substantiated that threat to applicant's life remains. It is also relevant to note that the SP/CID (Special Branch) of Manipur Government has submitted in its report, as late as on 21.01.2019, that as per fresh reports received, the threat perception to the life of the applicant cannot be ruled out.
24. On the basis of the records available on the file, we find that there is sufficient evidence in favour of the assertion of the applicant of extreme hardship and threat perception, which is perennial in nature. Apparently, these factors have not been taken into consideration by the respondents while considering inter-cadre transfer of the applicant.
25. Accordingly, we direct the respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of inter-cadre transfer of the applicant out of Manipur State afresh. Till such time the decision is taken by respondent No.1, we direct that the applicant will continue on deputation with State of Madhya Pradesh. The period from 10.06.2015 (date of issuance of Annexure A-4) to 06.02.2019 (date of relieving by Government of Madhya Pradesh) shall not be treated as unauthorised deputation. Further, the period after 06.02.2019 till the date of pronouncement Page 25 of 26 26 OA 200/00211/2019 of this order be regularised as leave due. Respondent No.1 is directed to complete these exercise expeditiously, not exceeding three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant.
27. With the above observations, the Original Application is disposed of. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
Am/-
Page 26 of 26