Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The applicant has further stated that the work and conduct of the applicant has been to the maximum satisfaction of the senior officers and there is nothing adverse against him. The applicant has earned appreciations for his work and conduct while on deputation with IB.

11. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, in their counter reply, have stated that the applicant, while posted in STS-II BSF, Bangalore, was sent on deputation to IB for a period of three years w.e.f. 24.09.1999 to 23.09.2002, vide orders dated 06.07.1999 and 25.08.1999. On completion of his prescribed period of deputation, BSF approached IB to repatriate the applicant to report to his parent organization, i.e. BSF, vide letters dated 14.07.2003, 04.11.2003, 30.12.2004 and 14.03.2005, but the applicant was not relieved in spite of repeated requests from BSF. Instead, IB had approached BSF for conveying concurrence for extension of deputation of the applicant upto 23.09.2005, i.e. for sixth year, vide letters dated 11.04.2005 and 26.05.2005. The matter was examined by BSF and the competent authority took a decision not to convey NOC for the purpose, as requested by borrowing department for extension of deputation of the applicant, due to administrative as well as operational reasons. Accordingly, IB was informed and requested, vide letters dated 21.04.2005 and 02.06.2005, respectively, to repatriate the applicant immediately as the prescribed period of his deputation had already expired on 23.09.2002.

Respondent No. 2, in his counter (para 6), has stated that the applicant was not found suitable for absorption in IB as he did not possess mental ability required for intelligence work nor did he display eagerness to learn intelligence traits. Such grounds have been mentioned to deny absorption to the applicant, without giving him opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, an officer of the respondents' organization, while forwarding the applicant's request for extension of deputation, vide letter dated 15.03.2005 (Annexure A-12) stated that the applicant is a sincere dedicated and committed worker who has discharged his responsibilities satisfactorily.

38. The applicant has argued that since the deputation was continued beyond the fifth year, he should be deemed to have been absorbed in terms of the O.M. dated 05.01.1994 (supra). Actually the import of the O.M. dated 05.01.1994 (supra), on a composite reading, is quite contrary. The prescription of DoPT approval for extension of deputation beyond fifth year or second year in excess of the period prescribed in the Recruitment Rules (pars 8.4 & 8.5), stoppage of deputation (duty) allowance after the fifth year etc., are meant to discourage officials continuing on deputation in excess of the prescribed period. If there is any doubt on this score, it should be put at rest from a plain reading of para 8.3 of the O.M. dated 05.01.1994 as follows:

If the borrowing organization wishes to retain an officer beyond the prescribed tenure, it shall initiate action as above for seeking concurrence of lending organization, individual concerned etc. 6 months before the date of expiry of tenure. In no case it should retrain an officer beyond the sanctioned term unless concurrence of lending organization has been received.
This does not advance the case of the applicant. As a matter of fact, having not initiated the process of extension of deputation six months in advance of completion of 5 years, the respondent No. 2 clearly could not have expected any favourable response from respondent No. 3. Moreover, as pointed by respondents, this O.M. is about deputation and not absorption.