Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On the other hand, it was submitted by Shri Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the applicant has no legally enforceable right to complete the extended period of his deputation, and that the applicant can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either of the Departments and he has no vested right to continue on deputation. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that non-issuance of advance notice of three months does not invalidate the order dated 9.12.2014. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the order dated 9.12.2014 repatriating the applicant to his parent Department being not punitive/stigmatic and being an order of repatriation simplicitor, the applicant cannot be said to have any grievance. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Agya Ram, Civil Appeal No.1779 of 1970, decided on 17.8.1976, and the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Shailesh Singh v. Union of India and others, MANU/CA/0086/2010.

7.2 In Ratilal B. Sonis case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that an employee on deputation can be reverted to his parent cadre at any time, who would have no right to be absorbed on the post of deputation.

7.3 In Kunal Nandas case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court reiterated its earlier decisions that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.

(i) Is the repatriation order valid and legally sustainable or stigmatic/punitive liable to be quashed?

(ii) Is the action of the Respondents to relieve the Applicant on the day of issue of the repatriation order in post haste mala fide?

13. We may take up the first issue for our analysis viz Is the repatriation order valid and legally sustainable or stigmatic/punitive liable to be quashed?

14. It would be appropriate for us to note the settled position in law relating to deputation and repatriation. Deputation precedes the repatriation. In service jurisprudence, deputation is resorted to in public interest to meet exigencies of public service. Deputation is a tripartite agreement as held by Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Versus Inder Singh[1997 - 8- SCC- 372], based on voluntary consent of the principal employer to lend the service of his employee, which decision has to be accepted by the borrowing Department/ employer and also involves consent of the employee. Generally the deputation is the assignment of an employee of one Department / cadre to another Department / cadre and the deputation subsists so long as parties to tripartite agreement adhere to the same. The moment this tripartite agreement is disturbed or vitiated or repudiated, the employee would have no legally enforceable right to continue to complete the agreed period of his deputation. The Honourable Supreme Court in Ratilal B. Soni & Others versus State of Gujarat & Others [1990 (Supp) SCC, 243] held that an employee on deputation can be reverted to his parent cadre at any time, who would have no right to be absorbed on the post of deputation. In Kunal Nanda versus Union of India & Another [AIR 2000 SC 2076] the Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier decisions that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. A Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurinder Pal Singh versus State of Punjab [2005 (1) SLR 629], after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex court in Kunal Nanda case (supra), Ratilal B. Soni case (supra), and Rameshwer Parshad versus Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited [1999 (5) SLR 203 (SC)] has held that a deputationist would have no vested right to continue in the borrowing department till the completion of the stipulated period of deputation and the deputation being a tripartite contract, can be continued only if all the parties like it to continue. Honourable Apex Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India[AIR -2000 SC 2076]decided on 24-4-2000 held as follows:

16. The case of the applicant was that he was appointed on the post on deputation basis for a period of five years and the same could not be curtailed. The position as narrated above undisputedly brings out that the tenure of deputation can be curtailed but the settled legal position in the subject lays the ratio that the order of deputation curtailment must be simplicitor and the grounds of the curtailment should not be stigmatic or punitive. Even if the grounds for repatriation is stigmatic/punitive the order of repatriation must precede proper enquiry and principles of natural justice more specifically audi altrem partem which means that an opportunity should be provided to the officer concerned to defend himself properly. It is also trite that the grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance or ineffectiveness of the officer concerned do not become stigmatic / punitive. As per the deputation policy, the applicant would have an indefeasible right to hold to the said post for such period as mentioned therein, and the same could not be curtailed except on grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. The learned counsel for the parties for their specific points placed their reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the Ramakrishnan case (supra). The order of deputation clearly specified a period of five years on the post the Applicant was appointed. Deputation is a tripartite agreement among the lending Department, the borrowing Department and the individual Officer. Thus the Applicant has a right to remain on deputation, and simultaneously the Government reserves the right also to revert such officers to their parent cadres at any time without assigning any reasons. This Tribunal in Sunil Krishna versus Union of India & Others (OA No.1729/2006 decided on 6.3.2007), held that the tenure deputation set out is subject to discretion of the Central Government to revert deputationist officers to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reason. If the applicant may derive the right to continue on normal deputation for a period of five years on the basis of the policy, the said normal deputation period would be subject to the discretion of the Central Government to curtail the same. In so far as judgment of the Honble Supreme in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra), is concerned, it may be seen that it deals with only providing of a period of deputation, without there being any right to curtail it without assigning any reason. That apart, the Supreme Court has clearly held that even if the tenure of a deputation is specified, an officer on deputation has no indefeasible right to hold the said post. It is noted that the period of deputation should not ordinarily be curtailed except on just grounds for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court would apply where it is a straight case of providing a period of deputation without there being any right with the Government to curtail it. It is for this precise reason, it appears, that the order of deputation of the Applicant has given alternatives with the suffix of until further orders, whichever event takes place earlier. Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of H. C. Prem Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others [2010 (1) SLR 126] considered a case with the grounds of ineffectiveness and dismissed the Civil Writ Petition vide judgment delivered on 27.11.2009. In this case Petitioners 23 in numbers were sent on deputation to Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab Government for 2 years but just after 6 months they were repatriated to the present department on the grounds that the petitioners have not been able to serve the borrowing department with the effectiveness required. The grounds for cutting short the deputation period like unsuitability and unsatisfactory performance are not exhaustive. The same have been stated only by way of illustration as is clearly mentioned in the decision. The law as settled appears to be that when the period of deputation is specified, the same may be curtailed on the ground that the employee is unsuitable for the concerned job or is having unsatisfactory performance, or the officer is ineffective or such other grounds which would reflect the efficiency or effectiveness of the concerned officer. In this context the Honble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Versus J.P. Verma & Another(supra) relied upon the observations made in its earlier decision in K.H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra [(1971) 1 SCC, 792], which read as follows: