Karnataka High Court
Dr. Parimal Roy vs The President, Indian Council Of ... on 3 September, 2020
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION No.9580 OF 2020 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
DR.PARIMAL ROY
S/O LATE GOPAL CHANDRA ROY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS DIRECTOR,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
NIVEDI, BENGALURU,
RESIDING AT NO.31/1, 8TH CROSS,
VRC COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
KRISHI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001.
-2-
3. THE DIRECTOR (PER)
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 (THROUGH VC))
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00242/2020,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THIS PETITION AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF REPATRIATION DATED 17.03.2020
BEARING NO.107(1)/2015-PER.III ISSUED BY THE
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH -
RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A12 OF
ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who is stated to be working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research at Nivedi, Bengaluru, had assailed an order of repatriation dated 17.03.2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for the sake of convenience). By the said order, the petitioner -3- who is a permanent employee of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, and who was working on deputation with Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR' for short) was repatriated to his parent department i.e., Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, with immediate effect. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.08.2020, dismissed the O.A. No.170/00242/2020 filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.Irfana Nazeer and learned counsel for caveators - respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri. B.A. Chandra Shekar and perused the material on record.
3. At this stage, petitioner's counsel drew our attention to the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 17.03.2020. She submitted that the impugned order of repatriation of the petitioner to the parent -4- department is not a simple order of repatriation as it has been made in order to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, who was also under suspension. She submitted that the petitioner was under deemed suspension with effect from 01.09.2018 on account of his detention by the Police authorities on charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He had challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A. No.1758/2018 which granted relief to the petitioner by opining that a suspended employee could not be repatriated. Therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in service. She submitted that after reinstatement, the impugned order of repatriation has been made. That the impugned order states that the parent department may take action as it deem fit and therefore, in substance, there is a direction issued to the parent department to take action against the petitioner. That if any action had to be taken against the petitioner, the borrowing department itself could have done it as there is no impediment in law for the borrowing department to take -5- action. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have quashed the order dated 17.03.2020. She submitted that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, now a direction for relieving the petitioner from the borrowing department so that he could be repatriated to the parent department has been issued and hence, the impugned order of the borrowing department as well as the Tribunal may be stayed on entertaining the Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents - caveators submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition. That the Tribunal has categorically stated that the impugned order of repatriation is an order of repatriation simpliciter. It cannot be termed as punitive nor is it stigmatic. There is no adverse comment made by the borrowing department while repatriating the petitioner's service to his parent organization and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order -6- dated 17.03.2020, which is an order of repatriation, we find that though the said order sets out the background for repatriation it cannot be termed as stigmatic. In fact, on account of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1758/2018 to the effect that there could not be a repatriation order made when the officer is under suspension, therefore, the suspension order was revoked. The petitioner was reinstated in service. Subsequently, a decision has been taken to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department i.e., Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University with immediate effect. It is also noted that the order of repatriation states that if the parent department deems fit, it may take action against the petitioner. There is no categorical direction issued by the borrowing department to the parent department to initiate action against the petitioner nor can it be construed so. It is left for the parent department to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The parent department may also not initiate action against the petitioner. -7- Further, merely because the order of repatriation notes the background facts in the order of repatriation, it cannot be construed to be stigmatic in nature. In fact, that is exactly what has been recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No.30 of its order. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has also noted that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is left to the parent department. It is also noted, while there cannot be any impediment for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner by the borrowing department, but that is not the reason as to why repatriation has been made. In the instant case, the issue regarding competency to initiate proceedings against the petitioner is not the reason for repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department. The Tribunal has also noted that there is no adverse comment made by the borrowing organization against the petitioner touching upon his integrity or honesty and that the order of repatriation is an incident of service. In the circumstances, we find that the observations of the -8- Tribunal are favourable to the petitioner. We find no merit in the writ petition.
Writ Petition is, hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sma