Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and hotly contested the cause of the applicant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that claim of the applicant that the decision of repatriation to parent cadre, has not been communicated to him, is not sustainable because the SSB had deputed a senior officer to his residence to deliver the order of repatriation on him on 11.9.2006 and the order was duly delivered to the applicant who accepted the envelope containing the order and opened it and read out its contents but returned the order to the emissary. The conduct of the applicant refusing to accept Government communication amounts to an act of indiscipline and unbecoming conduct on the part of a senior IPS Officer, The first respondent has issued order of repatriation on 11.9.2006 (Annexure B). SSB had also issued order of repatriation of applicant w.e.f. 11.9.2006 (AN) (Annexure C), The applicant had already been relieved w.e.f. 11.9.2006 with the direction to report back to his parent cadre. While dealing with case of applicant on tenure policy relying to IPS Officers, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in April, 2000, prescribing a normal tenure of 5 years for officers at I.G. level, it is averred that the Policy on the deputation tenure cannot be read in isolation because in the same Tenure Policy it has been provided in Para 10 that the prescribed deputation tenure will not confer any right on the offices to remain on Central deputation and the Central Government reserves the right to revert such officers to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reason. So, the case of the applicant would be squarely covered under this clause of the tenure polity.

22. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that when the tenure of a deputationist is specified in the deputation policy, applicant has indefeasible right to hold the said post for complete 5 years and the period cannot be curtailed, except on grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. Counsel contends that it is nowhere the case of the respondents that applicant was found unsuitable for the job or was guilty of unsatisfactory performance and, that being so, the period of deputation of the applicant could not be cut short for any unauthorized reason. In support of this contention learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and Anr. v. Ramakrishnan and Ors. . In the context of facts and circumstances of the present case, this argument too appears to have no merit. The deputation in the present case is governed by Policy, set out in O.M. of April, 2000. Said policy is available on record as Annexure A-1. It recites that in terms of the provisions of Article 312 of the Constitution, the Indian Police Service is an All India Service common to the Union and the States. Rule 6 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 provides for deputation of IPS Officers under the Central Government or another State Government or autonomous body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Government or an international organization etc. Every State cadre of the service provides for a central deputation quota, which in turn requires additional recruitment to be made to the service to provide for trained and experienced members to serve on posts in the Central Government. Accordingly, utilization of the Central deputation quota of different State cadres is an important factor governing the scale at which officers arc borrowed from the various State cadres of the service. It is clearly mentioned therein that no posts so filled by a member of IPS on tenure deputation can be deemed to be a cadre post of that service. Similarly, no individual member of IPS can claim any right to a post for appointment under the Government of India or the State Government. The normal deputation tenure at different levels in the Central Government has been prescribed. In the case of the Inspector General, the normal deputation tenure is 5 years.

The deputation tenure as prescribed in the preceding paragraphs will not confer any right on the officers to remain on Central deputation. The Central Government reserves the right to revert such officers to their parent cadres at any time without assigning any reasons.

Thus, from the deputation policy, relevant paras whereof have been cited above, it is apparent that even though normal period of deputation of an officer of the rank of the applicant may be 5 years, but the Central Government has a right to revert an officer to his parent cadre without assigning any reason. This Tribunal, while dealing with same very policy in the context of Para 10 reproduced above, in O.A. No. 1729 of 2006 decided on 6.3.2007 in Sunil Krishna v. Union of India and Ors. held that the tenure deputation set out in Paragraph 6 of the O.M. is subject to Para 10 wherein, the Central Government has reserved right to revert deputationist officers to their parent cadre, at any time without assigning any reason. Thus, it is in this context that the contention of learned Counsel for applicant needs to be appreciated. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that once the applicant derives right to continue on a normal deputation for a period of 5 years on the basis of policy, Annexure A-1, the said normal period is subject to discretion of the Central Government to curtail the same without assigning any reason, according to the same very policy. In so far as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, 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 adepulation is specified, despite this, a deputationist has no indefeasible right to hold the said post Ordinarily period of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds for example, "unsuitability" or "unsatisfactory performance", (emphasis supplied). The deputationist, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has no indefeasible right to hold the post but ordinarily, it should not be curtailed. The law laid down by the Hon'ble 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 word "ordinarily" has been used. Assuming that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply even if there is no right with the Government to curtail the period of deputation, as per the discretion without any reason, even then it may not be correct to argue that the term of deputation can be curtailed only where deputationist is unsuitable or has unsatisfactory performance, as the word "unsuitability" or "unsatisfactory" are prefixed with the words "on such just grounds". The grounds for cutting short the deputation period like unsuitable and unsatisfactory performance are not exhaustive. The same have been slated only by way of illustration as is clearly mentioned in the decision. The contention of learned Counsel that the period of deputation of applicant could be curtailed only on the ground of his being unsuitable or having unsatisfactory performance is untenable and has to be repelled.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratilal B. Soni and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 243, has held that a deputationist 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 v. Union of India and Anr. 2000 (3) SLJ 336 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2076, the Supreme Court has held 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 and Haryana High Court in Gurinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 (1) SLR 629, after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) and Ratilal B. Soni and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra), and Rameshwar Parshad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited , has held that a deputationist would have no vested right to continue in the borrowing department even till the completion of the stipulated period of deputation. It is a tripartite contract and can be continued only if all the parlies like it to continue.