Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cbfc in P V R Rajasekharam vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 10 August, 2018Matching Fragments
(As per Hon'ble Mrs.Naini Jayaseelan, Member (Admn.)) The applicant was appointed as Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Hyderabad, on 02.06.2016 on deputation basis up to 27.10.2019 after being selected by a duly constituted Committee. Subsequently, during the period of deputation, by an order dated 20.12.2017, issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Information and ....3 Broadcasting, an officer of the Senior Grade of IIS Group 'A' (STS) was posted as Regional Officer, CBFC, Hyderabad, that is in the same post as that of the applicant. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, thereafter issued a clarification on 22.12.2017 that the 3rd respondent will take over as Regional Officer, CBFC, Hyderabad, and upon his joining, the applicant was requested to assist him in the execution of work until further orders. The applicant then filed OA.No.1152/2017 and the matter came up for hearing before the Vacation Bench on 27.12.2017. The Tribunal directed to list the OA for instructions to the Counsel representing the official respondents. Thereafter, this Tribunal vide interim order dated 05.01.2018 directed to maintain status-quo as existing on 05.01.2018 with regard to the post of Regional Officer, CBFC, Hyderabad, until further orders. Thereafter, an impugned order dated 04.01.2018, (Annexure.A-I to OA.No.41/2018), was issued prematurely repatriating the applicant to his parent cadre, mentioning therein that the DoP&T had agreed for relaxation of three months notice period as per the terms of their OM dated 17.06.2010. Thereafter, an order dated 05.01.2018 was issued relieving the applicant and repatriating him to his parent cadre with immediate effect.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that the impugned orders were issued without any reason for premature repatriation and that he should be allowed to complete his tenure in terms of the appointment order dated 02.06.2016.
......4
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant stated that aggrieved by the same order, Ms.A.Prathibha, Regional Officer, CBFC, Thiruvananthapuram, had filed an OA.No.180/00012/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, wherein it was stated that since the appointment on deputation was for a period of 4 years, irreparable hardship has been caused to her on account of this premature and abrupt repatriation without any prior notice. The Counsel for the Applicant also stated that the applicant has never given any room for complaint nor has there been any case of proven misconduct on the part of the applicant during the deputation period. The counsel also contended that neither has any reason been given for effecting the premature repatriation of the applicant nor any reason given for the waiver of the mandatory three months advance notice on premature repatriation. He argued that since deputation is effected with the due consent of the officer concerned, the borrowing department as well as the lending department, the premature repatriation of the deputationists can only come to an end after giving reasonable notice to the official as well as the lending department in case of any unsatisfactory work or a proven misconduct. The Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal has observed this position and stated that the issue has been made clear in Purushothamlal Dhingra Vs Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 36) and Moti Ram Deka Vs North Eastern Railway, Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 600), and has also referred to the order of the Mumbai ....5 Bench of this Tribunal in Sushovan Banarjee, IPS Vs Union of India in OA.No.387/2010, which is extracted as under: