Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 10.08.2023 and thereafter on various dates when the parties filed their additional affidavit, counter affidavit etc. We heard learned counsel for the parties finally on 26.09.2023 and with their assistance we have perused the pleadings available on record and the matter was reserved for orders.

4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was initially appointed as CT/GD under respondent no.2, on 12.08.2003. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Min) through LDCE on 17.09.2007. The applicant was appointed as Care Taker under respondent no.3 on deputation basis w.e.f. 24.11.2017 initially for one year, w.e.f. 24.11.2007 to 23.11.2018. The period was extended for two years w.e.f. 24.11.2018 to 23.11.2020. The applicant has submitted his willingness for permanent absorption as Care Taker under respondent no.3. However, the respondent no.2 did not issue the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) in this regard on account of non-completion of mandatory 18 years of service on the relevant date and such decision was communicated by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 under intimation to respondent no.3. Again on receipt of request from respondent no.3 for issuance of NOC for considering permanent absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3, respondent no.2 considered and did not agree to issue NOC on the ground that the applicant has not completed the requisite 18 years of service, which is an essential service criteria for CAPFs as per MHA Deputation Policy Guidelines dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure R-3 to the short reply of respondent no.3). However, the applicant was granted extension of deputation for 4th year keeping in view the willingness of the applicant, the NOC issued by respondent nos.1&2 and consideration made by respondent no.3. Regarding extension of applicant's tenure for 5th year, starting from 23.11.2021 respondent no.2 vide their communication dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure R-2), respondent no.2 requested respondent no.3 to repatriate the applicant. It has also been stated in such communication dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure R-2 with the counter reply of respondent no.3) that the applicant has been found blameworthy for false claim of LTC bills and against him disciplinary proceeding is pending with further direction to the applicant to report to FHQ, SSB, New Delhi for timely completion of disciplinary proceedings. Of course, vide their communication dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure R-3 of counter reply of respondent no.3), informed the respondent no.3 that extension of deputation/absorption of the applicant has been considered by the respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 has agreed to issue NOC for extension of deputation tenure for 5th year, i.e., upto 23.11.2022 subject to concurrence of respondent no.1 in terms of Policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016. Subsequently, various communications were sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 at the request of the applicant for grant of NOC for extension of tenure for 5th year, i.e., upto 23.11.2022, subject to concurrence of respondent no.1 in terms of the deputation policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016. The applicant vide his application dated 31.10.2022 requested for extension of his tenure for 6th year on the ground that concurrence of the competent authority for his permanent absorption was awaited from respondent no.1 and accordingly the respondent no.3 sent a communication dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure R-4 with the counter affidavit of respondent no.3) to respondent no.2 with a request therein to grant NOC for extension of 6th year deputation period beyond 23.11.2022 in respect of the applicant. Respondent no.2 vide its communication dated 13.01.2023 conveyed to respondent no.3 that the DG, SSB has not agreed to issue NOC as the applicant was involved in fraudulent claim of LTC and disciplinary proceeding is pending against him with the request to respondent no.3 to repatriate the applicant with direction to him to report at FHQ, SSB, New Delhi forthwith as his deputation has already expired on 23.11.2022. The respondent no.3 pursuant to the communication dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure R-5 with the counter reply of respondent no.3) of respondent no.2 repatriated the applicant.

4.4 A short affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 in opposition to the claim of the applicant with a further submission that the OA is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 4.5 Similarly, a short affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2, stating that the OA is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. More or less the facts precisely recorded hereinabove have been stated by respondent no.3. In the short affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 it is asserted that since the applicant was involved in LTC fraudulent claim, the respondent no.2 has not agreed to forward the SFS file to respondent no.1 for further course of action and was conveyed to respondent no.1 vide ID note dated 07.10.2021. It is further asserted that despite the request from respondent no.3 on various occasions during November, 2021 to August, 2022 for issuance of NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant as well as permanent absorption of applicant, but the DG, SSB did not agree to issue the same as the applicant was involved in fraudulent claim of LTC. However, as per the direction of the Court, a proposal for extension of deputation as well as applicant's absorption was sent by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 for further necessary action. However, the respondent no.1 has accorded NOC only for grant of ex-post facto extension of deputation period beyond 5th year w.e.f. 24.11.2022 to 10.02.2023 (i.e., upto the date of repatriation in respect of the applicant vide communication dated 08.06.2023).

4.6 The respondent nos.1 & 2 have filed their additional affidavit and therein it is asserted by them that the fraudulent claim of the LTC by officers/officials of SSB has been forwarded to CBI by SSB for investigation and the same is still under investigation with ACB, CBI New Delhi vide FIR No.RC-DAI-2020-A-0041 dated 18.12.2020 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. It is further asserted that the name of the present applicant has been shown in the production-cum-seizure memo of CBI dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure R-1 colly with the additional affidavit of respondent nos.1 & 2). 4.7 Respondent no.3 has also filed additional affidavit keeping in view the order of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2022 vide which a copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Care Taker has been placed on record. It is stated therein that the total strength of the post of Care Taker under respondent no.3 is 20. As of today, the posts of Care Taker are vacant in four Benches of respondent no.3, i.e., Guwahati, Jabalpur, Jodhpur and Mumbai Benches. It is further stated by respondent no.3 that respondent no.2 conveyed NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for one year beyond 23.11.2022 only after the applicant was relieved and that too subject to concurrence of respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 has conveyed the decision of the competent authority for grant of ex-post facto extension of deputation beyond 5th year for the period from 24.11.2022 upto 10.02.2023 ( i.e. upto the date of repatriation) vide communication dated 08.02.2016 and had not granted NOC regarding permanent absorption of the applicant. The respondent no.3 has further averred that after expiry of the deputation period the employee has to go back to his parent department unless the term of deputation is extended or he is permanently absorbed in the borrowing department and there cannot be any deputation/absorption without the consent of the lending department and borrowing department of person so deputed.

5.1 The learned senior advocate for the applicant has further argued that with regard to the alleged fraudulent LTC claim for the block year 2014-15 the respondent no.2 has already passed a final order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure PR-2 of the additional affidavit of the applicant) and thus it is erroneous at the end of the respondent nos.1 & 2 that disciplinary proceeding is still pending against the applicant.

5.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant has further argued that the competent authority for grant of NOC for deputation, extension of deputation and or for absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3 is respondent no.2 and the policy guidelines of respondent no.1 dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R-7) only provides consultation with respondent no.1, i.e., MHA and once the respondent no.2 has given its NOC in respect of extension and or absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3 it is immaterial as to whether the respondent no.1 has agreed to the proposal and or the NOC given by respondent no.2 in this regard. He has referred to para-18 of the said guidelines dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R-7 with the short reply of respondent no.2).