Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M Sunil Kumar Naik vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 27 April, 2023
OA.No.020/0150/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/0150/2023 &
M.A.No.113/2023
DATE OF ORDER: 27.04.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. B.ANAND, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
M.Sunil Kumar Naik, IPS,
S/o M.Chinna Badya Naik,
Aged about 42 years, Occ:DIG, CID,
O/o Director General of Police,
Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.C.Raghu, Senior Advocate for Mr.P.Bhaskar)
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep., by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training,
Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
4. The Chief Secretary, State of Bihar,
Patna, Bihar State.
5. The Director General of Police,
Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri,
Guntur District.
6. The Director General of Police,
State of Bihar, Patna. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs.B.Gayathri Varma, Sr.CGSC
and Mr.M.Balraj, GP for State of AP
P a g e | 1 of 20
OA.No.020/0150/2023
ORAL ORDER
PER HON'BLE MR. B.ANAND, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER This OA.No.150/2023 is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following main relief:
"To declare the O.M. of the DoPT to the MHA No.37/15/2022- EO(SM-I) in January of 2023, on the basis of which the MHA has issued an O.M to the Govt. of A.p. dated 20.01.2023 vide E-6916100/CSP/2023 in which it simply stated that the 'Competent Authority has not agreed to the proposal and has returned the same' as void ab initio for the lack of application of mind in addition to being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to continue the applicant in Andhra Pradesh by maintaining status quo and direct the Cabinet Committee for Appointments (ACC) to consider the applicant's request on its merits and to pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant Sri M.Sunil Kumar Naik, IPS (BH) 2005, joined the Andhra Pradesh cadre from Bihar cadre on interstate deputation basis with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) with effect from 07.01.2020 for an initial period of 3 years with the deputation period ending on 06.01.2023. While working in Andhra Pradesh cadre on interstate cadre deputation, the applicant submitted a representation on 12.07.2022 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking extension by two years of his interstate cadre deputation tenure in Andhra Pradesh cadre on the grounds of personal hardship as both his aged parents were affected with health issues - father suffering from paralysis due to an accident and mother suffering from cancer.
P a g e | 2 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide their letter dated 12.09.2022, forwarded the representation of the applicant to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, for their concurrence. The Government of Bihar, which is the original parent cadre of the applicant also vide their letter dated 15.11.2022 conveyed their concurrence on the proposed two years extension. So based on the favourable recommendations of the both the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Bihar, the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the cadre controlling authority of the applicant, vide their OM No.1021021/02/2019-IPS-IV, dated 14.12.2022, also sent the proposal for interstate cadre deputation of the applicant to the Secretariat of the ACC located in the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi, for further processing of the case.
4. As the Union Government had not taken a decision on his request for the inter-cadre deputation, the applicant filed OA.No.837 of 2022 before this Tribunal, seeking a direction to the ACC to maintain status quo and allowing him to continue in Andhra Pradesh cadre. This Tribunal, vide order dated 05.01.2023 had allowed the stay of the applicant in Government of Andhra Pradesh till a decision is taken regarding extension of interstate cadre deputation by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicant availed of the interim stay of this Tribunal from 05.01.2023 to 17.02.2023 and continued to remain with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, this Tribunal by order dated 17.02.2023 in M.A.No.74/2023, filed by the respondents, allowed the MA by vacating the interim stay order dated 05.01.2023 granted in P a g e | 3 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 OA.No.837/2022. Meanwhile, the Secretariat of the ACC vide their OM File No.37/15/2022-EO (SM-I), dated 09.01.2023, returned the request for interstate cadre deputation, on the ground that the applicant's initial 3 years deputation period from Bihar cadre to Andhra Pradesh cadre has ended on 06.01.2023.
5. Based on this order of the Secretariat of the ACC, the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter No.I.21021/02/2019.IPS-IV, dated 20.01.2023, conveyed to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the competent authority has not agreed to the proposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for interstate cadre deputation tenure of the applicant to be extended for further two years beyond 06.01.2023 and has returned the same. Accordingly, the Chief Secretary of Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Government order G.O.No.468, dated 07.03.2023, directing the DGP, AP, to make internal arrangements to relieve the applicant with a direction to the applicant to report to his parent cadre i.e., Bihar. The office of the Addl. Director General of Police, CID, AP, Mangalagiri, issued a similar order No. Endt.C No.7007/E3/CID/2023 on the same day i.e., 07.03.2023. Currently, the applicant is on a two months leave to which he is entitled to after the completion of his interstate cadre deputation. The applicant has filed this O.A.No.020/150/2023 seeking relief before the expiry of his two months leave period ending in May, 2023, against the impugned orders No.37/15/2022-EO (SM-I), dated 09.01.2023 of DOPT and No.I.21021/02/2019.IPS-IV, dated P a g e | 4 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 20.01.2023 of MHA, contending that they are illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires the guidelines concerning the extension of inter-cadre deputation.
6. It is further the contention of the Applicant that the first respondent has in violation of the law failed to pass a speaking order with respect to his proposal for extension of inter-cadre deputation, which was required to be given. The first respondent has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice and has illegally discriminated against the Applicant.
7. It is further the contention of the Applicant that he has fulfilled all his legal obligations vis-à-vis the extension of the tenure of inter-cadre deputation in letter and spirit and in a timely manner and there is nothing on record to contradict the same so as to deny his request. He has sought inter-cadre deputation on the grounds of personal difficulties and his request had been forwarded by the State Government concerned. He is eligible for a review for an extension of 2 years after his initial 3 years of inter-cadre deputation. His request for extension had been forwarded by the State Government with cogent reasons. He has sought the approval of the State Governments well in advance of 3 months before the end of his initial deputation period.
8. According to Office Memorandum No.DOPT-1675121801565 (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, AIS (AIS-I (S-III), dated 19.12.2022:
P a g e | 5 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 "a) All the cases of inter cadre deputation would be processed as per existing guidelines. The cases which are covered under the extant policy/guidelines are to be submitted to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) through E.O. division, DOPT with the approval of the concerned Minister-in-charge directly.
b) The cases where relaxation of any of the provisions of these guidelines on inter cadre deputation are required will be put up to a Committee for a decision as to whether the request of the officer may be submitted to the ACC for its consideration, in relaxation of existing guidelines.
................
(e) The Committee if so decided may invite the officer concerned for personal hearing before it along with documents corroborating the personal hardship."
9. It is submitted by the applicant that if the present case of inter-cadre deputation ought to have been processed as per existing guidelines, it ought to have been submitted to the ACC through E.O. Division, DoPT with the approval of the concerned Minister-in-charge directly. It is submitted that, most egregiously, there is no indication that the matter was put to the ACC or considered by the ACC at all. Further, if any relaxation of guidelines was deemed to be necessary in his case, the matter ought to have been first put to the Committee for its recommendations on the need and justification of inter cadre deputation. However, there is no record of any such reference or consideration of the applicant's proposal, which was initiated on the grounds of intense personal hardship on account of the applicant's parents' illness.
P a g e | 6 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023
10. In support of his contentions, the applicant has cited the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, High Court of Delhi and Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and Bangalore Bench.
1. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd & Others v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others (2010) 9 SCC 496);
2. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1970) 1 SCC 764;
3. Jitendra Gupta v. Union of India (2018) SCC Online CAT 28611);
4. Union of India v. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar in Civil Appeal No.7116/2010, dated 27.08.2010;
5. Shiv Charan Lal Sharma v. union of India (W.P.(C) No.3660/2017, dated 06.08.2012;
6. Sri Vijayakumara Salimath, IFS v. State of Karnataka in OA.No.170/00427/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench;
7. Dr.Chakkirala Sambasiva Rao, IPS v. Union of India in OA.No.1083/2020/CAT/Principal Bench;
11. The applicant submitted that in the case of Sri Vijayakumara Salimath, IFS v. State of Karnataka inOA.No.170/00427/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench, an IFS officer had been granted inter-cadre deputation for a period of three years on personal grounds, after which he had become eligible for an extension of a further two years. However, his application for extension had not been processed and no decision had been communicated. The Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal directed that the respondent therein to pass a reasoned and P a g e | 7 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 speaking order in accordance with law. Before taking such a decision, the applicant may also be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
12. The applicant further submitted that in the case of Dr.Chakkirala Sambasiva Rao, IPS v. Union of India in OA.No.1083/2020 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant was an IPS Officer, who had applied for inter-cadre deputation on the grounds that his mother's health had deteriorated and his brother's wife had been diagnosed with Stage-IV Metastatic Lung Cancer. Although the two concerned State Governments had communicated their no-objection, his request was rejected by the Union Government. The same was communicated by MHA, which merely stated that the request "cannot be acceded to, and that the same is being issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. Examining the said communication by the MHA, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal held as follows:
"7.There is no reference to or mention of the matter having been dealt with the committee. Though it cannot be said that the order suffers from any infirmity or illegality, the exercise must indicate that the committee applied its mind to the facts pleaded by the applicant."
It went on to state that "the record must indicate that the facts pleaded by the applicant are taken note of. It would have been better, had the impugned order contained some reasons". Because of the fact that a relaxation in the guidelines was needed for the applicant therein which had to be considered by a separate committee as per DOPT guidelines, the applicant in the case being referred to , was directed to file a fresh application before the Union Government. It was P a g e | 8 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 directed that the opinion of the State Governments need not be sought afresh as they had already acceded to the request, and the Tribunal directed that the Union Government "shall pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the fresh representation (Para 10, emphasis added)"..
13. The applicant further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and Ors v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, held as follows:
"18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi- judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'.:
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that -
"51..... this court holds:
a.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
P a g e | 9 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part P a g e | 10 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
14. The applicant further submitted that in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1970 (1) SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him : it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be, supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi- judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may deter-mine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just."
15. The applicant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jitendra Gupta v. Union of India (2018 SCC Online CAT 28611, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down various observations regarding P a g e | 11 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 the said Committee's requirement of passing orders. The relevant extracts are reproduced as under:
"From the Note of the PMO, it is clear that no reason has been assigned as to why the proposal for inter-State deputation of the applicant has been rejected. Such an order is obviously arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal. In this regard, we would like to refer to the following judgments.
Union of India v. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (Civil Appeal No.7116/2010, decided on 27.08.2010;
" 19. Notwithstanding the fact that it is open to ACC which alone is the appointing authority and not the Minister concerned, as urged by the respondent to differ from the recommendations of the DPC, it must give reasons for so differing to ward off any attack of arbitrariness. Those reasons will have to be recorded in the file. It requires to be stated at this stage that we have perused the file in the instant case. We find no reasons have been recorded for differing from the recommendations of the DPC. That is why the tribunal also inter alia observes in the impugned judgment as under:
However, the counsel for the respondent felt helpless in the matter and he failed to provide us any inkling of what prevailed with the ACC in dropping the petitioner and four others out of the select panel of 59 officers. ............................................................................
iii) The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Charan Lal Sharma v. Union of India & others (W.P. (C) No.3660/2017 decided on 06.08.2012 has observed as under:-
"35. No doubt, the approval of the ACC is mandatory and the final authority vests with the ACC. But if the selection committee has selected any candidate, the ACC can reject the same by giving the reasons on record, which is missing in the present case."
21. From the above cited judgments, it is quite clear that ACC is required to record reasons for rejecting a proposal. As noted hereinabove, in the instant case, the decision of Hon‟ble Prime Minister communicated by his office vide letter dated 20.10.2017 does not record any reasons. Hence, such a decision is ab initio illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, and is P a g e | 12 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 liable to be quashed and set aside in terms of the dictum of judgments referred to in paragraph (20) of this order."
16. The applicant further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar Pal v. Union of India (2011 SCC Online CAT 3796), wherein it was held that -
" 8. Hostile discrimination has been contended as a ground by the applicant. Respondent No.1 has not rebutted the inter State Cadre transfers cited in the rejoinder even during the hearing. If the request of a Chief Minister for inter state cadre transfer could be allowed by relaxing the rules though putting a rider that the case should not be cited as a precedent, why the applicant cannot be considered for inter state cadre transfer which is within the rules and needs no relaxation for the same. Undoubtedly, the legitimate and legally admissible cadre transfer is denied when there is enough evidence to show that there exist extreme hardship for the applicant. In the absence of clear rebuttal on the allegation of hostile discrimination from the 1st respondent, we get the feeling that Pick and Choose Policy gives rise to the suspicion of arbitrariness. Be that as it may, we are of the firm opinion that the applicants case deserves reconsideration by the 1st respondent."
17. The applicant further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.J.Sivani and Ors v. State of Karnataka (1995) 6 SCC 289), wherein it has been held that -
"Fair play and natural justice are part of fair public administration; non- arbitrariness and absence of discrimination are hallmarks for good governance under rule of law. "
18. In contra, the respondents contended that with the approval of ACC the applicant joined Andhra Pradesh cadre from Bihar cadre on inter-cadre deputation basis w.e.f 07.01.2020 for an initial period of 3 years i.e., till 06.01.2023. Thereafter he submitted a representation dated 12.07.2022 to the P a g e | 13 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking 2 years extension of his inter-cadre deputation tenure in Andhra Pradesh cadre on the grounds of personal hardship. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide their letter dated 12.09.2022 forwarded the representation of the applicant to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for their concurrence. Accordingly, the Government of Bihar was also requested to convey their comments/concurrence on the request for extension of inter-cadre deputation tenure. In response, the Government of Bihar, vide letter dated 15.11.2022, conveyed their concurrence on the proposed extension.
19. The respondents further contended that the inter-cadre deputation of an IPS Officer is governed by the terms of Rule 6(1) of IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which reads as under:
" ...A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Government or 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."
The guidelines for inter-cadre deputation of All India Service Officers are issued by DOP&T from time to time. Recently, the DOP&T vide their OM dated 15.11.2022 have issued the compiled/revised guidelines for inter-cadre deputation of AIS Officers. Therefore, being a cadre controlling authority of IPS Officers, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), vide OM dated 14.12.2022, sent a proposal to the DOP&T (Secretariat of the Appointment Committee of P a g e | 14 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 Cabinet) with a request to obtain and convey approval of ACC for extension of inter-cadre deputation of the applicant for a period of 2 years beyond 06.01.2023 on the grounds of personal hardship. However, the DOP&T, vide their OM dated 09.01.2023 have communicated that since the tenure of inter- cadre deputation in respect of the applicant from Bihar cadre to Andhra Pradesh cadre has ended on 06.01.2023, the subject proposal of the Ministry is hereby returned. As such, the request of the officer for extension of tenure stands rejected. The above position was communicated to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of Bihar, vide MHA's letter dated 20.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA.No.837/2022. This Tribunal vide order dated 05.01.2023, directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant continued in Andhra Pradesh cadre beyond his approved tenure, which had concluded on 06.01.2023. Since the DOP&T (Secretariat of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet) had returned the proposal for extension of tenure of the applicant, the respondents filed MA.No.74/2023 before this Tribunal with a request to vacate the interim stay order dated 05.01.2023, so that the applicant could be relieved from Andhra Pradesh cadre. This Tribunal vide its order dated 17.02.2023 in MA.No.74/2023 allowed the MA and vacated the interim order dated 05.01.2023. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide their GO No.468, dated 07.03.2023, relieved the applicant from Andhra Pradesh cadre with a direction to the applicant to report to his parent cadre i.e., Bihar cadre.
P a g e | 15 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023
20. The respondents further contended that the approved inter-cadre deputation tenure of the applicant has already ended on 06.01.2023 and further extension of inter-cadre deputation of the applicant has not been approved by the competent authority. The respondents, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA with costs.
21. Heard Mr.C.Raghu, Senior Advocate for Mr.P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, learned Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Mr.M.Bal Raj, learned Standing Counsel for State of A.P., and perused the records.
22. The applicant is an All India Service IPS Officer hailing from Andhra Pradesh whose cadre controlling authority is the Ministry of Home Affairs. There are roughly 5000 IPS Officers serving in various States of the country under MHA. Due to the All India nature of service, while officers are allocated to particular cadre, which they are normally expected to serve during their career, they are also liable to be posted anywhere in India depending upon the exigencies of service determined by the cadre controlling authority i.e., MHA. In order to ensure smooth cadre management, the DOP&T has enunciated a policy regarding inter-cadre deputation contained in their OM No.13017/28//2022-AIS.I, dated 15.11.2022, according to which Para 3(g) reads as under:
"3 (g) A request for extension (upto a maximum period of five years) will be entertained only if it is forwarded by the State Government concerned with cogent reasons and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. In case no specific approval of the central P a g e | 16 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 Government for extension is received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer shall have to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure."
In the Applicant's case, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is a concerned State Government has given cogent reasons (lack of sufficient Police personnel consequent on the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States), three months prior to the expiry of deputation period. The Government of Bihar has also given the concurrence for the extension in inter-cadre deputation by another 2 years. The cadre controlling authority MHA has also endorsed the applicant's request for inter-cadre deputation by sending the proposal to DoP & T on 14-12-2022 for consideration. We find from the records that the respondent DoP&T has constituted a Committee comprising of
i) Secretary DoP&T as Chairman, ii) Establishment Officer & Addl. Secretary (Member) and iii) Addl / Joint Secretary in charge of A.I.S. Division (Member) and Home Secretary as a co-opted Member to examine the cases of IPS Officers including the applicant where relaxation of any of the provisions of the policy / guidelines on inter-cadre deputation is needed. It is not evident from the records whether the Committee has met and considered the request of the applicant for extension of his deputation period, in relaxation of existing guidelines found in DoP&T OM No.13017/28/2022-AIS.I, dated 15-11-2022.
23. We agree that ultimately it is the prerogative of GOI to allow inter-cadre deputation of AIS Officers, by rejecting such requests even when the borrowing and lending State Governments have given NOCs. The applicant cannot claim P a g e | 17 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 relaxation of rules and extension in deputation as a right. This is clearly indicated in para 3(i) of DoPT OM dated 15-11-2022 which reads as under:
"3(i) The inter-cadre deputation is valid only for the period for which it is allowed by the Central Government and any extension is automatic nor should it be presumed merely on the ground that the State Government concerned or officer or both had made a request to Central Government for extension. As such, the officer shall be entitled to draw salary etc. In the State to which he/she has been deputed only for the period for which he/she has been allowed deputation by the Government of India. He/she shall not be entitled to draw salary, etc. after expiry of the period of deputation. An officer on such deputation shall relinquish charge and get himself/herself relieved on the last day of his/her deputation if no orders extending his/her deputation by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority i.e. Department of Personnel and Training in the case of the Indian Administrative Service, the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of the Indian Police Service the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the case of the Indian Forests Service, are received in the State Government."
However, it is within the scope of Judicial review to examine whether such decisions are taken by the administrative authority in GOI after following rules and procedures and guidelines in this regard.
24. The judgment in Para 10, cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant, in particular the judgment of the CAT PB in the case of Dr. Chakkirala Sambasiva Rao, IPS Vs. U.O.I in OA No.1083/2020, which is similar to the applicant's case in some aspects are relevant to this case. We reiterate the imperative need for well-reasoned and speaking orders to be issued by all authorities as emphasized by the judgments cited by the applicant's counsel.
P a g e | 18 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023
25. It is well settled that unless the claim of a 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 [Kunal Nanda vs UOI (AIR 2000 SC 2076)].
26. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry of deputation period, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless, in the meanwhile, he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the recruitment rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority that controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post {State of Punjab vs Inder Singh [(1997) 8 SCC 372]}.
27. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to set aside the impugned orders bearing O.M. No.37/15/2022-EO(SM-I) of DoP & T and O.M. No.E-6916100/CSP/2023 of MHA as the deputation period of the applicant was over on 06.01.2023 and the officer has been relieved from the Government of Andhra Pradesh to join the Government of P a g e | 19 of 20 OA.No.020/0150/2023 Bihar on 07.03.2023. However, in view of the compelling circumstances of personal hardship of the applicant to remain in Andhra Pradesh to take care of his parents, who are suffering from serious health related problems, we remit back the matter to the respondents to pass an appropriate and well-reasoned speaking order on the representation dated 12.7.2022 of the applicant for inter- cadre extension of deputation, as early as possible.
28. With the above observation, the O.A. is dismissed. MAs pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( B.ANAND ) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dsn/pv/
P a g e | 20 of 20