Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned Senior Counsel further by referring to the impugned decision of the executive council submitted that the appellant was never informed or put on notice about the unsatisfactory performance or the dissatisfaction at any point of time. He further contended that when the appellant is in the services of the Union and has been appointed by the University on deputation, the impugned action is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

48. The writ court had dismissed the writ petition insofar as the reversion on the ground that it is not a penalty as contained under the Chapter 3 Ordinance governing the Control and Appeal of the Employees of the University.

49. In our considered opinion, when the appellant was appointed to the post of Registrar by appointment through deputation and he has been relieved from the services of the post of Registrar citing certain lapses and his unsatisfactory performance, then it necessarily falls under the category of penalty in either one of the clauses contained in Sub-rule (viii) or (ix) of Rule 6 of the abovementioned Ordinance. In this regard, we are not in agreement with the finding of the learned Judge that the reversion of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appellant to the parent department would not fall under Rule 6 for penalty since the University is entitled to revert, as per the agreements to be entered into with the concerned individuals. As it is a case of appointment by deputation, it cannot be construed as a mere transfer on deputation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15. The present case is not a case of transfer on deputation. It is a case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was issued and after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining of most eligible selected candidate except on ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.”

57. Insofar as the other submissions made and the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the tenure cannot be curtailed, as referred in the above decision itself, employer is entitled to cancel the appointment in case of unsatisfactory performance and non suitability. Now when the University had decided to relieve the appellant from the services mainly on the ground of unsatisfactory work which is revealed through the impugned resolution, the argument putforth that the tenure of the period cannot be curtailed cannot be sustained. However, any such decision taken to prematurely cancel the assignment must be in accordance with the provisions contained in the Statute and following due fair and reasonable process by complying with the principles of natural justice.