Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The instant three Original Applications belong to the same genre and arise from identical grievances, use similar reasoning and seek similar reliefs. They have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience OA No.1215/14 (Sandesh Kumar versus Union of India & Others) has been made the lead case as it is representative of the other two.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as CT/GD in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) and was subsequently appointed as HC/Tele in Sashtra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as SSB) on 29.07.1998. On 20.08.2010, the applicant applied for the post of SI/T, ACIO-II/WT with Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IB) on deputation. The parent department issued NOC relieving the applicant to join IB on deputation. Having been found eligible and fit, the applicant joined the IB as ACIO-II/WT for a period of three years on 04.09.2010 to be concluded on 03.09.2013. It is the case of the applicant that on 05.03.2013 he requested the borrowing department, that being respondent no.2, to consider his case for extension of deputation. The respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 27.09.2013 requested the SSB to convey necessary concurrence (NOC) of the competent authority for extending the applicants deputation period by another year i.e. from 04.09.2013 to 03.09.2014 (4th year). However, the applicant alleges that the respondents instead of extending his deputation by one year have decided to repatriate him on completion of his tenure in IB vide OM dated 28.03.2014 reciting therein that consequent upon completion of his deputation tenure in IB, Shri Sandesh Kumar, ACIO-II/WT, a deputationist SI/Tele, of SSB, is repatriated to his parent department and stands relieved of his duties from the Intelligence Bureau Hqrs. New Delhi with immediate effect with the direction to report for duty to the Assistant Director (Pers-III), DG, SSB, East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. A copy of this order was endorsed to the Deputy Director/Tech-VK, IB Hqrs, New Delhi with request to relieve the applicant with immediate effect positively, under intimation. It was further provided that in case the officer was not available in office for whatever reason, the order could be served at his residence.

3. The applicant has adopted the following grounds against alleged premature repatriation:-

(i) The first of the grounds is that since the parent department of the applicant has issued NOC for extension of deputation for a period of one year as sought by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, the applicant has a right to continue for further period of one year beyond 03.09.2013. The respondents are neither competent to curtail the extended period of deputation nor can the applicant be repatriated in the midst of the extended period in respect of which NOC has already been issued by the parent department and received by the borrowing department, particularly when the applicant has been performing his duties satisfactorily.
(iii) In the third place, the applicant submits that since he came on deputation to IB under the Recruitment Rules of 2004, he continues to be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2004. He is, therefore, entitled to be absorbed under the 10% quota pertaining to recruitment by deputation/absorption. The applicant further contends that it is certainly wrong on the part of the respondents to repatriate him prematurely without even allowing him to complete fourth year of deputation in respect of which NOC has already been issued by his parent department. The respondents, the applicant alleges, are biased as they did not even allow the mandatory period of three months notice prior to premature repatriation as provided in the OM dated 15.07.2010.