Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NOC FOR deputation in Govindraju R G vs Home Affairs on 6 March, 2023Matching Fragments
2.1 On 23.11.2017, the applicant came on deputation as a Caretaker in the office of Respondent No.3 initially for one year and the said deputation period was extended upto 5th year vide orders dated 15.10.2018, 21.11.2019, 02.12.2020 and 13.10.2022 (Annexure A-3 (Colly.)) which ended after 23,11,2022. During the aforesaid period, the process of absorption of the applicant as Caretaker in the office of respondent No.3 started and on 20.6.2019 (Annexure A-4), the applicant gave his willingness for his absorption. 2.2 On the basis of the aforesaid willingness of the applicant, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 16.7.2019 (Annexure A-5) sought NOC from the parent department of the applicant, i.e., Respondent No.2 for his absorption. The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure A-6) by the Respondent No.2 regarding the fraudulent claims of LTC for Rs.55,518.00 which was duly replied to by the applicant vide his reply dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure A-7). After receipt of the aforesaid reply of the applicant, the respondent no.2 gave its NOC for absorption of the applicant in the office of respondent no.3 vide order dated 16.9.2020 (Annexure A-8). 2.3 According to the applicant, the parent department of the applicant was convinced that the applicant was not involved in the fraud and forgery in the air tickets booked for availing LTC. However, when the aforesaid NOC was considered by the Respondent No.1, i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondent no.1 granted NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for 4th year and advised respondent no.3 to process the case of absorption of the applicant vide order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure A-9) and further the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against one SI (Min) Milan Kherkatary, who was handling the administrative task to book journey tickets of all officers of SSB and the SSB lodged criminal case against the said person which was registered as FIR No.RC-DAI-2020-A- 0041 dated 16.12.2020 by CBI/ACB/New Delhi (Annexure A-10 (Colly.)).The said person was arrested pursuant to said criminal case by the CBI/ACB and suspended by the department and that the said criminal trial is going on. The CBI/ACB did not lodge any FIR against the applicant or any similarly placed person(s) as the CBI investigation did not disclose any case against them. 2.4 On 31.8.2021, the applicant submitted his representation to his parent department, i.e., SSB to recover the aforesaid amount and has explained his stand in the matter. During 2021, the applicant came to understand that because of the said enquiry of fraud and forgery in air ticketing by SI (Min) Milan Kherkatary, the respondent nos.1 & 2are not facilitating the process of absorption of the applicant in the office of respondent no.3. 2.5 In view of such facts and circumstances, the applicant without prejudice to his innocence in the said allegation of fraud and forgery and with a view to facilitate his absorption in the office of respondent no.3, offered to refund the aforesaid LTC amount to his parent department vide his representation dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure A-11) and thereafter the applicant again represented to his parent department vide his representation dated 28.9.2021 (Annexure A-12), vide letter dated 8.11.2021 (Annexure A-13) and further vide letter dated 29.7.2022 (Annexure A-14). The applicant has also represented to the respondent no.2 requesting for grant of NOC for his permanent absorption in the office of respondent no.3 vide his letter dated 17.8.2022 (Annexure A-15). The parent department of the applicant vide order dated 14.9.2022 (Annexure A-16) has granted extension of deputation of the applicant for 5th year subject to concurrence from MHA (Police-II) Division as per MHA deputation Police Guidelines dated 22/11/2016. 2.6 The respondent no.2 has granted NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant with respondent no.3 vide letter dated 29.9.2022 (Annexure A-17) subject to concurrence from MHA (Police-II) Division. The respondent no.3 again wrote a letter to respondent no.1 seeking concurrence for absorption of the applicant vide letter dated 3.10.2022 (Annexure A-18). Thereafter respondent no.1 has granted NOC for 5th year extension of the applicant's deputation with respondent no.3, subject to condition that necessary approval of their Competent Authority will be obtained for extension by respondent no.3 in terms of DoPT's OM dated 18.5.2018, vide order dated 4.10.2022.
2.8 In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 13.1.2023, the respondent no.3 has issued order dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure A-
2) repatriating the applicant to his parent office, i.e., respondent no.2 on or before 10.2.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed the present OA for redressal of his grievance.
3. The matter was initially listed on 7.2.2023 when we heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. However, at the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the matter was posted to 8.2.2023. On 8.2.2023, the matter was again heard at length and was reserved for orders. While going through the pleadings available on record to pass the Order, we found that respondent No.2 has referred to policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016 of Ministry of Home Affairs, i.e., Respondent No.1 in their communication dated 16.9.2020 and on-going through the said policy, it was observed that the said policy relates to 'Policy Guidelines for deputation of combatised CAPFs and AR personnel in other organisations and accordingly, further clarification/hearing was felt necessary in the matter and accordingly, the matter was listed again on 13.2.2023 under the caption 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'. On 13.2.2023, 2 days' time was sought by the learned counsel for the respondents to ascertain whether the applicant belongs to combatised CAPF cadre in his parent department, i.e., Respondent No.2 and to place on record, a copy of the relevant documents in this regard and also to bring on record a copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post on which the applicant has been seeking absorption under the Respondent No.3. The matter was again listed on 15.2.2023. On 15.3.2023, when the same was heard at length and for further hearing, the matter was posted to 16.2.2023. On 16.2.2023, at the outset, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the present OA for this Tribunal lacking jurisdiction on the ground that the applicant is a holder of substantive post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), i.e., a combatised post under the Respondent No.2 and the main grievance of the applicant is that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have refused to grant 'NOC' for his being considered for continuation on deputation for the 6th year/ absorption under the Respondent No.3 on flimsy grounds vide impugned communication dated 13.1.2023 (Annexure A-1). In support of his such contention, Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 has argued that the impugned order dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure A-2) is mere a consequential order for repatriation of the applicant to his parent department in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have refused issuance of 'NOC' for applicant's further continuation on deputation/his absorption. The learned counsels for respondents have placed reliance on the following orders/judgments of this Tribunal:-
5. We have perused the pleadings on record. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties and have gone through the various judgments placed on record on behalf of the parties.
6. From the pleadings on record, the undisputed facts are that the applicant while joining the services of the Respondent No.3 as a Caretaker on 23.11.2017 on deputation was holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), General Central Service, Group 'C', Non-Gazetted, Ministerial (Combatised). Such post is governed and regulated by the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and is called as Sashastra Seema Bal, Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group 'B' and 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011. The policy issued vide Circular No.I- 21022/03/2016-Pers.II dated 24.11.2016 lays down the guidelines for deputation of combatised CAPFs & AR Personnel in other organisations, copies of such Recruitment Rules and Policy have been placed on record on behalf of the respondents. The applicant came to the Respondent No.3 on deputation initially for a period of one year and thereafter the said deputation period was extended from time to time and lastly the same ended after 23.11.2011. Though during such period, the matter of absorption of the applicant remained under consideration of the respondents, however, it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that earlier the respondent nos.1 and 2 have given NOC for applicant's permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3. However, it is found that the Respondent No.2 has put up the matter of issuance of such No Objection Certificate before the Respondent No.1 vide communication I.D. Note No.1/Per- 4/SSB/AFT-/2018/1941 dated 16.9.2020 (Pages 32-33 of the OA) and the Respondent No.1 has accorded approval for 4th year extension of the applicant w.e.f. 24.11.2020 to 23.11.2021 and have required the Respondent No.3 to forward the case of absorption of the applicant subsequently vide order No.MHA UO No. A-12011/2020-Pers-III-3471747 dated 23.11.2020. Again though vide order dated 29.9.2022 (Annexure A/17), the Respondent No.2 has agreed to issue the requisite NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant under Respondent No.3, however, the same has been subject to concurrence of Respondent No.1 as per Deputation Policy Guidelines dated 22.11.2016 of Respondent No.1 and thereafter the Respondent No.1 has accorded NOC for continuation of the applicant's for extension of his deputation for 5th year vide their UO No.A- 12011/2021-Pers-III-3562128 dated 4.10.2022. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not issued any NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant before issuance of the impugned order dated 13.1.2023 refusing to issue NOC for 6th year extension of deputation of the applicant starting from 24.11.2022 to 23.11.2023. It has also been admitted by the parties that pending correspondence for permanent absorption of the applicant, the applicant remained working under the respondents even beyond the period of his approved deputation which ended after 23.11.2022. It is already recorded hereinabove that even on behalf of the applicant, it has been stated that the applicant is having no enforceable right for permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 and the applicant is having a right for a fair consideration in this regard. It is not disputed that the claim of the applicant for continuation on deputation even for 6th year and his permanent absorption has been considered by the respondents. However, continuation/absorption has not been approved by the Respondent No.3 for lack of NOC from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. From the complaint dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure A/10 Colly.) of Respondent No.1 addressed to CBI, it appears that the same refers to involvement of 754 officers/officials of SSB, besides a few others, in the alleged fraudulent claim of LTCs and request has been made therein for investigation in the matter and a list of suspected persons has been assured to be provided. The case FIR No.RC-DAI-A-0041 dated 16.12.2020 also indicates that the same had been registered under Section 120B as well and the same has been registered against one Malan Kherkatary and other unknown persons. The impugned order dated 13.1.2023 indicates involvement of the applicant in the said fraudulent claim of LTC and pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him.
16. In view of the aforesaid, we have to see as to whether the refusal of grant of NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for 6th year started from 24.11.2022 and/or his permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is connected with his membership of a combatised cadre of the SSB or not? As noted hereinabove, once the applicant is admittedly a member of a combatised cadre of the SSB, i.e., the armed force of the Union, refusal by the competent authority amongst the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuance of NOC for his absorption under the Respondent No.3 cannot be construed not to be connected with the membership of the applicant of a combatised cadre of the SSB, the armed force of the Union. It would be evident from the Full Bench Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey (supra), answer 'No' to the reference before the Full Bench is for the reason that dispute raised had nothing to do with the membership of the applicant therein of the armed force of the Union. However, in the case in hand, we are of the considered view that the issue raised relates to membership/service matter of member of the armed force. The definition of the expression 'service matters' has been considered by the Full Bench in the Judgment under reference which is as under:-