Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
J Krishna Kishore vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 7 February, 2020
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD
BENCH, HYDERABAD
O.ANo G2 1092/2019
Date of CAV:07 02.2020
HYDERABAD this the 25th day of February 2020
Lo ttting, 8%
KT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY,CHAIRMAN
© Gye @\ THE HON'BLE MR.B.V.SUDHAKAR, MEMBER (ADMN.)
Between:
J.Krishna Kishore, s/o Justice J.Eswara Prasad (Retd.),
Aged 55 yrs, Oce:Gavernment Service, IRS Grv'A',
Rio Plat No. 1189, Road No.60, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, . Applicant
(By Advocate: MrwV. Prasad, Counsel for the Applicant)
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradash, rep., by
its Principal Chief Secretary to Govi., Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Viayawada, Andhra Fradesh,
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative
{$C-DB) Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,
Secretariat, Amaravathi, Viayawada,
AndhraPradesh.,
3. The Director General, ACB, AP Head Quarters Office,
2" floor, N.T.R. Administration Block, Pandi Nehru
Bus Station, Viayawada-520 001.
4. The Directar General CID, Ofo The Additional Secretary
General Office, Crime Investigating Department,
APDGP Head Quarters.
5. The Union of india, rep., by ifs Secretary,
M/o Personnel, North Block, New Delhi-170 001.
O.A.No.021/1092/2019
6. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, rep., by its
Chairman, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
> The Secretary, M/o Finance, Govt. of india,
North Block, New Delhi-110 0071. . Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs.K.Rajitha, S-CGSC
Mr.M. Balraj, SC for State of A.P.)
: ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Mr Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman} The applicant is an officer of Indian Revenue Service of 1990 batch. In 2015, he was working as Private Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on deputation. At that time, a request is said to have been made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the deputation of the applicant for a period of 3 years, to work as Special Secretary. The applicant has also made a request in that behalf. The Ministry of Civil Aviation relieved the applicant, and thereafter the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, accorded permission for shifting the applicant to the Government of Andhra Pradesh: on deputation basis, through order no.147 of 2015 dated 28.08.2015, and to enable him to join as Special Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Through orders in G.O.Rt.No.2911, dated 23,09.2015, the applicant was appointed as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board, (for short "the Board"). Vide orders dated in G.O.RtNo.2028, dated 17.09.2018.
the deputation was extended by another two years from O.A.No.021/1092/2019 29.08.2018 to 28.08.2020. The applicant states that he has undertaken several works to promote investment in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board.
a > Ps Me
2. On 24.05.2019, the applicant addressed a letter to the ist respondent with a request to repatriate him to the parent department. That was followed by representation dated 3.72019.
The first respondent issued orders in G.O.RtNo.1464 dated 3.7.2019, transferring the applicant from the post of CEO of the Board and directing him to report to the Government in GAD, the 2° respondent herein. On 7.17.2019, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the 6" respondent herein, addressed a letter to the first respondent requesting them to repatriate the applicant to the parent department.
3 On 12.42.2019, the applicant was promoted to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. On the same day, the first respondent passed an order in G.O.RtNo.2814 placing the applicant under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 20 raw Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This OA is filed challenging the order of suspension and with the prayer to direct the 1° respondent to repatriate him to the parent department.
4. The applicant contends that since he was becoming ripe fer promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of income Tax, he w:
nN aa ©.A.No.021/1092/2019 | made a request seeking repatriation and even the parent department viz., Respondent No.6 also addressed a letter to the first respondent for his repatriation. According to the applicant once there is a request for repatriation by himself and his parent department, the first respondent was under obligation to accede to the request and there was no basis to continue him, that too by transferring from a specific post without assigning any duties whatever. He contends that his deputation was post specific, and the employee who is taken on deputation to handle a particular post cannot be put to any other post without his consent.
&. The applicant contends that there was no complaint whatever against him at any stage of his service and the order of suspension was passed without any basis and purely as a measure of vendetta. He further stated in the OA that in his capacity as an officer of the Income Tax Department, he had to verify the assessment of the firms owned by the present Chief Minister earlier and that in turn fed to initiation of proceedings against the latter under the relevant provisions of law. He contends that once there was a change of guard in the Government of the State, he has been transferred from the post of CEO, and though he wanted to go back to the parent department, it was not acceded to with the sole objective of harassing him.
o. Barner 4 wv
6. The applicant contends that there was no complaint whatever from any circle, as regards his functioning as the CEO of the Board, for the past 4 years and he was suspended grossly misusing the power. He submits that a borrowing department is under obligation to bring to notice of the parent department, the instances of irregularities or deviations on the part of an employee on deputation, ifany, and it is only when a serious allegations are made and there exist a consensus between the borrowing and lending departments, that the employee on deputation, can be placed under suspension.
He submits that impugned order of suspension passed does not accord with law and is motivated.
7. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the verification of the performance of the applicant as CEO revealed that certain irregularities have taken place and with a view to initiate disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension. it is stated that it is very much competent for the first respondent to issue the impugned order of suspension and the various grounds raised by the applicant are not tenable in law. it is also stated that the term of the applicant is in force di 28.08.2020. They did not deal, much with the plea as to repatriation
8. On behalf of the 4" respondent, an affidavit is filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, stating that an FIR has been ae, ees ©.A.No.024/1092/2019 © filed against the applicant by the Special Grade Deputy Collector of the Board on 15.12.2019 and an FIR No.22 of 2019 was also registered with PS, CID, AP.
9. Arguments on behalf of the applicant are advanced by Shri Neeraj Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel. He contends that the deputation of an employee takes place with the consent of the lending department, the borrowing department and the employee and once a request is made by the borrowing department as weil as an employee j..e, the applicant herein, there is no basis for the first respondent to deny repatriation. He contends that the order of suspension was unwarranted on facts and untenable in law. Learned counsel submits that there did not exist any complaint against the applicant ever since joining the first respondent on deputation, muchless any complaint was forwarded to the principal employer Le., CBDT. He submits that even on the date on which the order of suspension was passed, nothing existed on record nor any mention was made of it, He submits that the very fact that a direction was issued in the impugned order to file a criminal complaint against the applicant, discloses the motive on the part of the respandents to penalize the applicant for the role played by him in the verification of assessment of the Chief Minister on an earlier occasion. Placing rellance upon certain precedents, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the order of suspension is liable to be set aside and that the applicant be relieved, forthwith from deputation. PA ener oe O.ANo.021/1092/2019
10. Shri D Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. He submits that the tenure of the applicant on deputation with the first respondent, subsists til August 2020 and it is for the borrowing department to decide whether or not to relieve the employee on deputation, before the expiry of the term. He submits that the verification of the activities undertaken by the applicant as CEO of the Board revealed certain irregularities and to ensure that the applicant does not meddie with the further inquiry, he was initially relieved form the post and thereafter placed under suspension. He submits that Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules confers power upon the borrowing department to place an employee under suspension and that no irregularity has crept in to the impugned proceedings. He further contends that occurrence of various events in the OA are incidental, and not interrelated, as pleaded by the applicant.
11. The challenge in this OA {is to the order of suspension dated 12.12.2019 as well as to refusal on the part of the respondent no.1 to repatriate the applicant. It is fell appropriate to deal with the 2"
aspect, first.
12. The relevant facts pertaining to the service of the applicant are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The applicant is an officer of IRS, of 1990 batch and by the year 2015, he was on deputation to .
Ss ©.A.No,021/1092/2019 the Ministry of Civil Aviation. On @ féquest made by the applicant, and the 6" respondent, his deputation was shifted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and he was posted as CEO of the Board. Though the applicant enlisted his achievements in the Board and the first respondent on the other hand pointed certain deficiencies, lapses and irregularities on the part of the applicant, we do not find it necessary to refer to them, in the context of the discussion, pertaining to repatriation.
13. It is fairly well settled and known that the deputation of an employee involves three players viz, the parent department, the borrowing department and the employee concerned. It is only when an agreement emerges among the three that a valid deputation takes place. Even if one of them are unwilling, it cannot materialize. The deputation, particularly at a higher level of administration, is resorted to whenever the services of a specialized nature required in a department or Government. A particular department or Government may not have on its services, the employees of a given specialization. If a necessity arises to avail the services of a particular nature, ane option is to create a post of that nature and to make appointment. The other option is to avail the services of an existing employee in the other department or Government, on deputation basis. Much would depend upon the duration for which the services are needed and the desirability or otherwise, of having a permanent cadre. ~ 2 " 0.A.No.021/1092/2019
14. The deputation, once it takes place, would normally remain in force till the end of the term or the extended term. Instances are not lacking where the deputation is terminated before the expiry of the term. This can be at the instance of borrowing or lending department. If either of thern repatriate the employee before the expiry of the term, he does not have any vested right to continue. Similarly, if an employee requests for repatriation, the same needs to be acceded to, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
15. It becomes necessary to refer to certain background facts. In the OA itself, it is stated that the applicant was associated with the verification of the records of the Agencies connected with the present Chief Minister of the ist respondent State at a time when he was not holding that office, and that such verification in turn has resulted in initiation of proceedings under the relevant provisions. of law. Obviously for that reason, the applicant submitted a fetter seeking repatriation, once there was change of guard in the Government in the State. The respondents issued G.O.RtNo. 1464, dated 3.7.2019, transferring the applicant fram the post of CEO of the Board requiring him to report in GAD. No specific duties were assigned to him. On the same day, the applicant reiterated O.A.No.021/1092/2019 ly 2 Soe he Mo iayy, his request to repatriate him to the parent department. ft reads as follows:
'T would like to be repatriated to the Income Tax Department as | am due for promotion as Principal Commissioner income Tax within the next few days. My immediate repatriation will enable me fo rejoin the department in time for the Annual General Transfers that are slated to take place within the next 16 days and | would be required to apply for reposting before the Annual General Transfers.
fam grateful for all the support, guidance and the trust reposed on me by the administration. |. cherish and value the opportunity given to me fo serve in the State of Andhra Pradesh, for which | am eternally grateful"
The parent department (6" respondent) addressed a letter dated 7.11.2019 requesting the first respondent to repatriate the applicant to their department, which reads as under:
"lam directed to refer your letter No.388/SC_A/A- 2/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015 on the above mentioned subject and fo request you to repatriate Shri J.Krishna Kishore, IRS (1T:90025), CIT, working as Special Secretary in the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, immediately as his name falls in the zone of promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of income Tax."
it thus emerges that the applicant on the one hand and his parent department on the other hand, made request for his repatriation. The first respondent was under obligation to respond to such requests,
18. Normally, the borrowing department would be reluctant to relieve an employee under deputation, in case he was assigned any er particular specific work or project and it is half way through. Such an eventuality does not exist in this case. The reason is that the applicant was transferred from the post of CEO and he was kept idle from July 2019 onwards. In any way the very purpose of taking the applicant on deputation stood defeated from the date on which he was kept idle Le., 3.7.2019. The applicant was also impressing upon the first respondent that he is due for promotion in his parent department and his repeated requests did not evoke any positive response. Further, nothing adverse was either noticed or informed to the parent department.
17. In Kunal Nanda vs Union of India & Others (2000) 5 SCC 362}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"The basic principle underlying deputation self is that the person cancerned can always and af any time be repairated to his parent department fo 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 jong an deputation or get absorbed in the department fo which he had gone on deputation."
Though this was said in the context of a request of an employee for absorption in the borrowing department, the principle operates on the general aspect of deputation as such. This is particularly so, when the lending department intended to recall the employee.
O.A.No.021/1092/2019
18. In Umapati Chourdhary v. State of Bihar & Another (7999 (4) SCC 659), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the concept of deputation as under:
"9. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment af an employee {cammoniy referred to as the deputationisi) of one department or cacire or aven an organisation (common referred to as the parent department or fending authority} to another department or cadre or arganisation feammoniy referred fo as the borrowing authority). The necessily for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet ihe exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer fo lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. if also involves fhe consent of the employee to go on deputation ar not, in the case at hand ail the three canditions were fulfilled."
19. In the instant case, two, out of the three players, wanted repatriation. The agreement or consensus to continue his deputation ceased. Therefore, in the facts of the case, there was absolutely no basis or justification for the first respondent in not acceding to the request made by the applicant as well as the lending department for repatriation. The applicant cannot be continued on deputation contrary to his wish and the demand made by the lending department for repatriation. On its part, the {st respondent did not respond at ail, may be because, they did have much to say under these circumstances. The applicant was entitled to be repatriated.
20. The next issue is, the suspension of the applicant. ft was already been mentioned that on 12.12.2019, the applicant was wet OE S \O.A.No. O02 11 092/2019 promoted to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. On the same date, the first respondent passed order in G.O.Rt.No.2814, olacing the applicant under suspension. The order reads as under.
"GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SC-D} DEPARTMENT G.O.RENS.2814 Dated: 12.42.2019 Report received from industries, Infrastructure, investment & Commerce Department.
ORDER:
Government is in receipt of the report read above, After careful examination, Government hereby issue following orders:
2. in exercise of the sowers conferred by the sub rule if) of rule 20 read with sub rule (1) of rule 70 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal} Rules, 1965, the Government hereby places Sri J. Krishna Kishore, [RS under suspension with immediate effect and he shall continue to be under suspension in public Interest unt the conclusion of disciniinary proceedings,
3. The Director General, ACB and Directar General, CID shall register a case in his regard and investigate into the iregulariiies and take necessary action within six months.
A. it ia further ordered that during the pernod for which this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri J.Krishna Kishore, [RS shall be Amaravati and the said officer shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority.
(BY ORER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH} NILAM SAWHNEY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
21. Two aspects become relevant in this behalf. The first is about the competence of the first respondent and the second is about the legality and propriety of the order. So far as the competency is O.A.No.021/1092/2019 concerned, Rule 20 of CCS (CCA) Rules, does confer power upon the borrowing department/department te place an employee on deputation under suspension. Hence, it cannot be said that the first respondent lack competence.
22. Coming to the legality of the order of suspension, it needs to be observed that whatever be the freedom of an employer to place its employee under suspension, some amount of restraint is to be maintained when the employee is the one, who is under deputation. Basically it is for the original employer i.e., the lending department to regulate conduct of its employee. f an employee, while on deputation to another department, has resorted to any acts of illegality, such instances are required to be brought to the notice of the parent department so that it can take appropriate steps. ft can withdraw the employee forth with, or may suggest a course of action.
Ina way the reputation of the lending department also would at stake. Obviously, for that reason, the ultimate punishment can take place in the hands or with the consent of the lending department. K is only when the matter cannot brook any further delay, or when the lending department did not object to such a course, that a borrowing department can place the employee on deputation under SUSPENSION.
vl a O.A.No.021/1092/2019
23. In the instant case, the record does not disclose that any acts or omissions on the part of the applicant were either pointed out to him or to his parent department. Even the counter affidavit is silent as fo whether any such thing existed, by the time the impugned order was issued.
24. The circumstances under which an employee can be placed under suspension are fairly well settled. The principal objective is to ensure that the employee does not meddle with the inquiry into his alleged irregularities. Many a time, the transfer of an employee to another post or place, is treated as a close substitute for suspension. However, if the charges or allegations are grave, suspension is taken recourse to. The impugned order of suspension does not even refer to the existence of any serious acts or omissions on the part of the applicant. He was already stripped of his position as CEO way back in July 2019,and he was idie for 5 manths. No where, it is mentioned that during the period of 5 months, the applicant has indulged in any objectionable activities. On the other hand, his complaint is that he was not assigned any duties and was not paid salary and thereby he faced mental agony.
25. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2073 (16) SCC
147), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the subject of "S5\.0.,A.No.021/1092/2019 suspension pending inquiry in detail. Quite large number of precedents were taken note of. In paras 25 ta 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"13. There cannot be any doubt that the Rules 1965 are a self contained code and the order of suspension can be examined in the light of the statutory provisions to determine as fo whether the suspension order was justified. Undoubtedly, the delinguent cannot be considered to be any better off affer the charge sheet has been filed against him in fhe court on conclusion of the investigation than his position during the investigation of ihe case itself. (Vide: Union of india & Ors. v. Udai Narain, (1998) 5 SCC 535).
14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of MP vw Sardul singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108: PV. Srinivasa sasiry v. Comptroiier & Auditor General of india, (1993) 1 SCC 419: Director General Esl & Aor vo T. Abdul Razak, AIR 1996 SC 2292, Kusheshwar Dubey vo M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Lid & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2178 Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806: U.P. Raiva Krishi itpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 483: State of Rajasthan v. BK Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 4177; Secretary to Govi.. Probibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr vy.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 7, wherein if has been observed that even if a cnminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ardinanly not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as if is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review ifs order of suspension being of we é Vek ~~ O.A.Ng.021/1092/2019 an inherent power conferred upon them dy the provisions of Anticie 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, # satisfied that fhe criminal case pending would be concluded affer an unusual defay for no faull of the employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job. a case for judicial review is made out But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived af without examining the entire record in question and in order thal the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that fhe authonty is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought fo have been and if results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions, The court may, in case the authority fais fo furnish proper explanation fer delay in conclusion of the enguiry, direct fo complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enguiry or tral can not be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not interfere with fhe orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question.
Suspension is a device fo keep the delinquent ouf of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an intenm measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinguent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, if is not oe We, en _ of Af eansaanent desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as ff if an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review.
715. Rule 10 of the Rules 1965 provides for suspension and clause 6 thereof provides for review thereof by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. However, the extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. The CVC can aiso review fhe progress of investigation conducted by the CBI in a case under the Act 7988.
The Vigilance Manual issued by CVC on 12th January, 2005 specifically deals with suspension of a public servant. Clause 5.13 thereof provides that Commission can fay down the guidelines for suspension of a government servant. However, if the CB! has recommended suspension of a public servant and the competent authoriy does not propose to accept the said recommendation, the matier may be referred to the CVC for its advice. The CBI may be consulted if the administrative authority proposes to revoke the suspension order, Clause 6.1 read with Clause 6.3.2 thereof provide that suspension is an executive order only to prevent the delinquent employee to perform his duties during the period of suspension. Hawever, as the suspension order constitutes a great hardship to the person concerned as if leads io reduction in emoluments, adversely affects his prospects of promotian and also carried a stigma, an order of suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or in a roufine and casual manner but with due care and caution after taking all factors into account.
Clause 6.3.3 further provides that before passing the order of suspension the competent authority may consider whether the purpose may be served if the officer is transferred from his post.
D.A.No.021/1092/2019 © a eo eo Ss tn ©.A.No.021/1092/2019 Clauses 17.42 to 17.44 of the CBI (Grime) Manual 2005 also deal with suspension. The said clauses provide that the government Servant may be put under suspension if his continuance in office would prejudice fhe investigation, ifal oor enquiry e.g. apprehension of interfering with witnesses or fampering of documents or his continuation would subvert discipline in the office where fhe delinguent is working or his continuation would be against the wider public interest ° If the parameters mentioned above are applied to the facts of the present case, the order of suspension becomes untenable. Further, this is a rare case in which the Chief Secretary of State Government has directed the Director General of APEDB, to register a case and investigate into the irregularities. As a matter of fact, the known course is that if an employee commits any acts . which attract punishment under relevant provisions of law, the concerned authority registers a case duly obtaining the necessary permissions. if he is arrested, suspension follows as a consequence. The issuance of charge sheet is examined thereafter. When there was no complaint, muchless any initiation of proceedings by the prosecuting agency, it was just ununderstandable as to how the Chief Secretary can direct the registration of a case that too, against senior officer of the Central Government, who was just on deputation to the State. Adequate thought does not appear to have been given to such a serious and delicate aspect. In a way, presence of such clauses or Pet tin \ O.A.No.021/1092/2019 directions in the order of suspension speak about lack of bonafides or arbitrariness touching on the very legality of the order of suspension. Obviously, in obedience to the direction issued by the Chief Secretary, a complaint was submitted on 15.12.2019 by Special Grade Deputy Collector, which is associated with its letter and curiously that a subordinate employee has made a complaint against CEO and that in turn gave rise to registration of FIR,
26. The impugned order of suspension does not even refer to the existence of any grave charges nor any charge memo was issued. Curlously enough, it is mentioned that the suspension shall remain tl the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. This runs contrary to the very Scheme under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Another aspect is that the order of suspension is required to be in force for 90 days and thereafter to be reviewed in case no charge memo is issued. The question of directing the suspension till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings even before the charge memo is issued, does not arise.
27, Viewed from any angle, we do not find any factual or legal basis for issuing the impugned order of suspension. It does not stand scrutiny of Jaw and the same deserves to be set aside.
tay, oa Ap Whey oe nae O.ANo.021/1092/20719 We therefore allow the OA by --
Setting aside the G.O.RtLNo.2814, dated 12.12.2019: and Directing that the applicant shall forth with be relieved for his Xb) epatriation to the parent department. Since he is kept in waiting in the 2°° respondent office since 03.07.2019 and not assigned with any _ ey, duties, he shall be entitled to report to the parent department Le, Respondent No.6;
in case, the first respondent intends to initiate any disciplinary {c) proceedings against the applicant, it shall be open to them to do so in consultation with the respondent no.6, in accordance with law.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.