Mahendra Singh (Dr.) vs Union Of India
1999 Latest Caselaw 392 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The writ petitioner is working as Managing Director of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited, the fifth respondent. The first and the third respondent, according to the petitioner, are seeking to send him to Chowdhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar treating the appointment of the petitioner as the Managing Director of the fifth respondent company as being on deputation. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs.

"In the facts and circumstances as explained herein above and in the interest of justice it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon. Court may be graciously pleased:

a) to allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs;

b) to issue appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions:-

i) declaring the threatened action of the respondents in proceeding to repatriate the petitioner is illegal;

ii) restraining the respondents from repatriating the petitioner before the expiry of the period of five years and, in the alternative, without holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the allegations, if any;

2. Mr.G.D.Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, formulated the following points:-

1. That the petitioner was recruited direct and he is entitled to continue till 29.2.2000 A.D.

2. That the first and the third respondents purported to take action against the petitioner to assess his performance without adhering to the principles of fair play and justice.

3. That the first and the third respondents seek to non-suit the petitioner in office on the ground that he himself had admitted in his representation to the Government that he was appointed on deputation and, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from contending that he was appointed by following the method of direct recruitment.

3. On the 8th of October, 1992, the Public Enterprises Selection Board, hereafter called that PESB, the third respondent, wrote to various public sector undertakings to recommend the names of suitable officers. The letter reads as under:-

"The Public Enterprises Selection Board is on the look out for a suitable candidate for the post of Managing Director, State Farms Corpn., in sch. `C' scale of pay of Rs.7900-200-8900/-. A copy of the job description as finalised by PSEB is enclosed I shall be grateful if you could kindly recommend the names of fficers, whom you consider suitable for this post. Their up-to-date biodata may also please be sent to me immediately."

4. The petitioner, who was working in CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, sent his application through proper channel. The letter sent by the Director of Research of the Chowdhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University reads as under:-

Sub: APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE FARMS

CORPORATION OF INDIA.

I am directed to forward herewith an application in respect of Dr./Sh. Mahendra Singh, Prof. of Soils of this University for the purpose mentioned above for favour of consideration."

5. The third respondent sent communication to the petitioner to appear for an interview on the 13th of May, 1993. The communication reads as under:-

"PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECTION BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MEET YOU FOR THE POST OF MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE FARMS CORPN ON THURSDAY ON 13TH MAY, 1993 AT 10 AM IN THE CHAMBER OF CHAIRMAN PESB PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAWAN BLOCK NO.14 3RD FLOOR CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. (+) PAY SCALE RS.7500-200-8500.

(+) PLEASE TAKE CLEARANCE FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY IF NECESSARY AND ALSO CONFIRM WHETHER YOU WOULD MEET THE BOARD AT THE AFOREMENTIONED DATE TIME AND SECRETARY PESB"

6. The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet had approved the appointment of the petitioner on the 24th of April, 1995 and the same reads as under:-

"Reference correspondence resting with the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation letter No.13016/3/92-SD.II dated 31.10.1994.

In partial modification of the decision of the ACC convened vide Department's order of even number dated 20.5.1994, for appointment of Shri V.M.Ambekar, UPAS, as Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India Limited (SFCI) w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge till the date of his superannuation on 31.5.1996, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has now approved the proposal for appointment of Dr.Mahendra Singh as Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India Limited (SFCI) till the date of his superannuation."

7. On the 27th of April, 1995, the Government of India issued the following order appointing the petitioner as Managing Director of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited, the fifth respondent. The letter reads as under:-

"The President, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Article 50 of the Articles of Association of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited, has been pleased to appoint Dr.Mahendra Singh, Professor of Soil Science, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar as Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India Limited, a public sector undertaking under the control of this Ministry, in the Schedule `C' scale of pay of Rs.7500-200-8500 (IDA pattern) plus other perquisites admissible to the incumbent of the post under rules framed by the Department of Public Enterprises from time to time with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation."

8. On the 11th of January, 1996, the Registrar of the CCS Haryana Agricultural University sent the following communication to the Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi:-

"This is to inform you that the Board of Management of this University vide item No.B-18 of its 161st meeting held on 21.8.1995 has approved the deputation of Dr.Mahendra Singh, Professor of Soils as Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India, New Delhi, until his date of superannuation i.e. 29.2.2000.

2. Kindly find enclosed deputation terms and conditions for taking further necessary action in the matter. As further approved by the Board of Management, deputation allowance 5% mentioned under para 2(i) of the terms and conditions shall be subject to a ceiling of Rs.100/- p.m. up to 20.8.95 and whereafter there will be no ceiling."

9. The questions that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner was directly recruited in the first respondent organisation or he was on deputation from the University?

2. Whether any stigma attached to the petitioner in repatriating him to the University if it is found that the petitioner was on deputation?

3. Whether the repatriation was on administrative reasons on the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation?

10. The fact that the petitioner was on deputation cannot be a matter of any debate. He himself had written on the 6th of August, 1997, in his representation, to the Hon'ble Prime Minister that he was on deputation. Therefore, the petitioner was clearly on deputation to the Corporation.

11. In the fifth respondent, Corporation, the age of superannuation is 58 years and the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.1998 having been born on 1.3.1940. The petitioner vehemently contended that as per the terms of appointment, he had a right to continue until the year 2,000, and, therefore, the Corporation cannot repatriate him before he completes his tenure in the year 2,000. The petitioner would not get the benefit of extension of age of superannuation by the Government of India because the decision was subsequent to 28.2.1998.

12. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that no particular age of superannuation was fixed in the Corporation and that was the reason why no reference is made to the age of superannuation in the appointment letter. On the materials placed on records, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the age of superannuation in the Corporation was 58 years and the petitioner could be repatriated on his attaining the age superannuation.

13. That takes us to the question, whether any punitive action was involved in sending back the petitioner to the University.

14. A few facts are necessary to be noticed in this behalf. A questionnaire was sent to the petitioner to ascertain particulars and that could be seen from the letter dated January 14, 1997 written by the the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture. The said letter reads as under:-

"I have been entrusted by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation with the task of making an inquiry into certain allegations against you. In order that the facts behind the allegations can be fully appreciated and the veracity or otherwise of the allegations ascertained, it would be appropriate to have your comments on the allegations.

2. I enclose herewith a note enclosed with a letter addressed by two Hon'ble MPs to the Prime Minister, with copies to the then Minister of State for Agriculture. I also enclose a copy of the letter addressed by the President of the SFCI Employees Union to the Union Minister of State for Agriculture. While many of the complaints are common, there are some allegations which are contained only in one or other note/letter.

3. You are requested to let me have detailed comments on each allegations/complaint in both the notes. Where the point is common your comments on the first note may refer to the corresponding (common) point in the second note. While giving your detailed comments, you may explain at length the position in regard to the point at issue. For example, in the case of House Building Advance (HBA), you may like to clarify the points mentioned in the Annexure. The points are mentioned by way of illustration and your comments of the allegations. Where there are subjective expressions of the type "he has earned a few lakhs in the purchase" you need not comment. However, the main facts e.g. whether wall clocks were purchased, at what rate, and how the purchase was decided, should be commented upon.

4. Please let me have your remarks within a reasonable period and, in any case, not later than fifteen days from the issue of this letter."

15. The petitioner sent his reply. It would appear that somebody had written to the Government of India as if Mr. Shibu Soren, Member of Parliament had written to the Government of India. That Member of Parliament himself on the 12th of June, 1997 had written to the Joint Secretary (SS) Ministry of Agriculture, stating that he had not written anything about the petitioner. The letter dated 12.6.1997 reads as under:-

"Kindly refer to your Confidential Letter No.71/Conf/JS(SS)/97 DATED 19/5/97 / 8/6/97 and recall telephonic message regarding some complaints against Dr.Mahendera Singh, Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India under my name as VIP reference.

As far as I remember I have not lodged any such complaint in the past against Dr.Mahendra Singh. Moreover, I don't know much about this person. However, I have read about him in some of the newspapers and also in one/two occasions seen him in TV, speaking about the upliftment of farmers and improvement of the Corporation. He has also indicated in one of the TV interviews about setting of seed production farms in the State of Bihar. As per your letter since I have not lodged any such complaint in the past and this may be a conspiracy against him involving VIP, as such I dis-own such letter/complaint and in future my name should not be dragged in such affairs."

16. On the 31st of July, 1997, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture seeking the clarification whether the petitioner's case had been referred to PESB. On the same date, the petitioner wrote to the Hon'ble Union Minister of State for Agriculture in the following terms:

"I have come to know through News paper reports etc., that a case has been initiated for my repatriation to my parent Department. In this regard it is submitted that apropos personal interview with your goodself and records available it was amply clear that my performance during past more than two years has been excellent. There is no disciplinary proceedings against me except some false allegations as a part of conspiracy against me. Still to my information case has been initiated without observing set of rules laid down for deputationists. This case should have been sent to PESB and set rules should have been observed but to my information channels are being by-passed and a case has been forwarded to Deptt. of Personnel & Training without observing any rule. I expect that at least justice has to be done with people in your regime and unscrupulous people do not take advantage of the situation. I, therefore, request for your kind indulgence to stop the case for my repatriation and grant me justice. I have spot less career of more than thirty years in an institution of HIGH REPUTE ON VERY SENIOR POSITIONS and have always been rated EXCELLENT ON PERFORMANCE. Even in SFCI during last more than two years my performance has been excellent which may be further confirmed. My only fault is that I have tried to crush unscrupulous designs of unscrupulous people and for that I being paid in these terms.

Further it is also submitted that for outstanding performance of some of the farms of the Corporation, I have also received Excellent Awards from Hon. President of India and also Hon. Prime Minister continuously for two years.

I shall, therefore, be very much grateful if you could take immediate action to stop such injustice."

17. On the 1st of August, Officers' Association of the fifth respondent wrote to the Hon'ble Prime Minister:

"State Farms Corporation of India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking) is a seed producing company in the services of farmers which is of great importance to the nation. The Corporation, therefore, established during the year 1969 and since then the organisation has been headed by highest people as Chief Executives. During the year 1996 a Professional Agricultural Scientist, Dr.Mahendra Singh was appointed as Managing Director (Chief Executive) who was earlier working at Haryana Agri. University, Hisar in different positions of high cadres. The Corporation has not performed very well during all thee years (excepting for 3-4 years). However, after joining of Dr.Mahendra Singh, the Corporation started improving and that lot of infrastructural development, technical know-how, Human Resources Development and Staff Welfare etc., and the Corporation is poised to bring high profits in future. A policy decision has been taken by the Govt. of India to head the PSU's by a technocrat. Unfortunately this has not been accepted by many inside and outside people. False complaints were made against Dr.Singh by Unions with forged letter heads of VIPs so that they could de-stabilise him and take advantage as Dr.Singh is curbing the lumpen elements. Further some vested interested people managed a powerful lobby of Ministry of Agriculture to take up the matter with DOPT for premature repatriation of Dr.Singh to his parent department i.e. HAU, Hisar by violation of approved administrative norms although as per approved terms and conditions his tenure with SFCI is upto 28th Feb. 2000. There are set rules for the repatriation of deputationists i.e. PSEB is an authority to decide the issue of repatriation on the recommendation of administrative Ministry. But rules to repatriate Dr.Mahendra Singh, MD has been flouted by Agri. Ministry. He is having sound health (Dr.Mahendra Singh) and best integrity and honesty. The set rules for repatriation of Chief Executive are attached. Unfortunately the Ministry of Agriculture (administrative Ministry) has not followed any of these rules and ignored all the rules with vested interests.The rules were ignored to destabilise Dr.Mahendra Singh.

The Officer's Association is requested the indulgence of Hon.Prime Minister for grant of justice not only to Dr. Mahendra Singh but also to SFCI because we feel that based on agricultural qualifications with 35 years long experience in Agri.University coming from dedicated agricultural family of Western UP could not be replaced as Chief Executive. We, therefore, earnestly request before your goodself that before, if any such action is contemplated by vested interests, Dr.Mahendra Singh be given full opportunity to defend himself."

18. On the same date, Santosh Gangwar, a Member of Parliament wrote to the Hon'ble Prime Minister:

"I am enclosing herewith a request of Officers Association of State Farms Corporation of India(A Government of India Undertaking) for redressal of non-observance of Rules. I am concerned because the Corporation fall in the area of agriculture and is in the service of farmers. Transparency must be followed in the rules and mainly when the Prime Minister himself is a party to the decision. Please stop the action unless rules are observed and justice is granted to a highest qualified Agricultural Scientist. The case attached is self-explanatory and abiased decision will ruin a highly important National Asset which is in the service of farmers and the contributions of Chief Executive are unmatchable in a short period of only about two years. I am concerned as Chairman, Standing Committee on Agriculture about the Government policy on encouraging professionals for such technical job which need to be perused in letter and spirit.

I hope for your quick intervention in the matter."

19. There is also a letter from ten Members of Parliament on the same date. The letter reads as under:-

"We, the following Members of Parliament are enclosing a request from Officers' Association of State Farms Corporation of India (A Govt. of India Undertaking), against non-observance of Rules of Govt. of India by Agri. Ministry. The request is quite genuine that if a Ministry does not observe well laid down rules who else will and what for the rules are framed. This is regarding replacement of Dr.Mahendra Singh, Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India who is a highest qualified Professional in Agriculture with above than 3 years of practical experience in the field of Agriculture and comes from a farmers family. There is no rule to replace such Chief Executive when he is appointed for five years and has completed more than two years and only about two and half years remain for his superannuation unless he is declared inefficient/ill health or is guilty of isconduct. Nothing applies in his case. He is ACC appointee so final decision lies with the Prime Minister. As per rules such a case should be forwarded to PESB for appraisal and its recommendation along with the reasons if any by the administrative Ministry which after doing the needful and giving opportunity for defense to Dr.Mahendra Singh will forward the case to DOPT for onward processing as per rules which are also attached. The Ministry has by-passed all these normsand sent the case directly to DOPT. We request that rules of Govt. of India be observed and such underland practice be stopped to keep transparency in the system. The Cabinet Secretary may be instructed to take full cognisance of the case."

20. On the 13th of August, 1997, the Government of the India wrote to the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. The same reads as under:-

Sub: Pre-mature termination of services of Dr. Mahendra Singh from the post of Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India Limited (SFCI).

The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Agriculture &Cooperation d.o.letter No.13016/4/96-SD.11 dated 18-7-97 on the subject cited above and to say that the proposal under reference was placed before the ACC for its consideration. The Committee has directed the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation to seek the opinion of the PESB and submit it to the ACC thereafter for a decision.

2. In view of the above, the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation is requested to take appropriate action in the matter.

21. On the 27th of August, 1997, the Secretary, PESB, wrote to the petitioner to attend the meeting on the 29th of August, 1997 at 12 noon. The letter reads as under:-

"THE PESB WILL JOINTLY APPRAISE YOUR PERFORMANCE AS MD SFCI IN ITS MEETING TO BE HELD ON 29-8-1997 (TWENTY NINTH AUGUST) AT 12.00 NOON IN THE CHAMBER OF CHAIRMAN PESB PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN BLOCK NO.14 CGO COMPLEX LODI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 003 (.) KINDLY ISSUE YOURSELF AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME OF THE MEETING (.)"

22. On the 26th of August, 1997, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary PESB to have the meeting next week. That request was not acceded to. On the 28th of August, 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture wrote to the PESB enclosing a copy of the Special Performance Report. Who prepared the report and when, it is not specified. On the 29th of August, 1997, the petitioner gave a brief report about the appraisal and performance. The same reads as under:-

"I was called for the appraisal of performance as MD, SFCI today the 29.8.1997 at 12.00 Noon. The information desired by the Committee was given in detail by me. One of the major issue raised during the discussion was related to achievements of the targets fixed in MOU. The Corporation is signing MOU since 1993-94 and the targets fixed were corelated to the requisite investments to be made on different components to create necessary infrastructure on Irrigation, machinery etc., The Corporation could not make requisite investments due to procedural delay by the Govt. of India to provide Govt. guarantee and also permission to mortgage the assets as corelated security for sanction of loan. Despite all efforts by the Chief Executive for sanction of loan at various levels the loan has not been sanctioned by the Bankers. As a result of non-implementation/investment plans on the basis of which targets are fixed in the MOU, could not be achieved, but the Corporation improved its performance considerably. This position was explained to DPE through administrative Ministry i.e. Ministry of Agriculture from time to time and relevant documents available with DPE. Despite the inability of the Corporation to make the requisite investment there is considerable improvement on financial and physical fronts in comparison with previous years as well as the targets fixed in the Budget. Budget is approved by the Board of Directors. The Corporation also in the past did not prepare the Corporate plan to draw the future strategies and during my tenure I have prepared a Corporate plan detailing therein the Corporation strategies for the future years. The Physical and financial, diversification of the activities in the changed circumstances to continue to the growth of the Corporation is enclosed which are duly flaged. During the current year 1997-98, the physical achievements in terms of the area covered during the current Kharif is enclosed, which indicates the improvement during the year 1997-98.

A brochure prepared by Dr.Mahendra Singh, MD is attached.

Parliament questions and replies given by the Hon. Agri. Minister, Govt. of India on the floor of the House on different occasions about the performance of SFCI during my tenure is also attached for kind information.

The total financial performance of the Corporation since the inception of the Corporation is also enclosed."

23. On the 11th of September, 1997, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet had decided to repatriate the petitioner. The same reads as under:-

"Reference correspondence resting with the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation D.O.No. 13016/4/96-SD.II dated 1.9.1997.

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal for pre-mature termination of the services of Dr. Mahendra Singh, from the post of Managing Director, State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.(SFCI)."

24. It is not necessary to dwell at length the circumstances culminating in the repatriation of the petitioner. The question whether in a given case stigma would be attached or not has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in "Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Another", JT 1998 (8) 585. After considering the earlier cases on the point, the Supreme Court referred to the position in what cases termination will not be punitive:

"It will be noticed from the above decisions that the termination of the services of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactor will not be punitive inasmuch as the above facts are merely the motive and not the foundation. The assessment is not done with the object of the Officer, as stated by Shah, J.(as he then was) in Ram Narayan Das's case.

It is done only with a view to decide whether he is to be retained or continued in service. The position is not different even if a preliminary inquiry is held because the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to find out if there is prima facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental inquiry. It has been so decided in Champaklal's case. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to find out misconduct on the part of the Officer and if a termination follows without giving an opportunity, it will not be bad. Even in a case where a regular departmental inquiry is started, a charge-memo issued, reply obtained, and an enquiry Officer is appointed - if at that point of time, the inquiry is dropped and a simple notice of termination is passed, the same will not be punitive because the enquiry Officer has not recorded evidence nor given any findings on the charges. That is what is held in Sukh Raj Bahadur's case and in Benjamin's case. In the latter case, the departmental inquiry was stopped because the employer was not sure of establishing the guilt of the employee. In all these cases the allegations gainst the employee merely raised a cloud on his conduct and as pointed by Krishna Iyer, J. in Gujarat Steel Tubes case, the employer was entitled to say that he would not continue an employee against whom allegations were made the truth of which the employer was not interested to ascertain. In fact, the employer, by opting to pass a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of appointment or as permitted by the rules was conferring a benefit on the employee by passing a simple order of termination so that the employee would not suffer from any stigma which would attach to the rest of his career if a dismissal or other punitive order was passed. The above are all examples where the allegations whose truth has not been found, and were merely the motive."

25. The Supreme Court to make the point explicit and clear in what cases it could be said that the alleged misconduct was the foundation of the order of termination:

"But in cases where the termination is preceded by an inquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the Officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of principles of natural justice in as much as the purpose of the inquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental inquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employees' conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings of the Inquiry Officer, which are all arrived at behind the back of the employee even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive, in such cases."

26. It is clear from the materials placed in this case that the respondents had repatriated the petitioner without giving any opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the respondents had taken the decision. In view of the fact that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and he was to be repatriated, it is enough, in my view, to say that the petitioner had been repatriated on administrative exigencies and all the proceedings initiated against him cannot be put against him and nothing shall be put against him in future so far as his career is concerned.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.D. Gupta, referred to the following judgments:-

1. "Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others",

2. "C.D.Ailawadi Vs. Union of India & Others",

3. "State of Bombay Vs. F.A.Abraham",

4. "The State of Assam & Another Vs. Ajit Kumar Sarma & Others", .

5. "Union of India & Others Vs. S.L. Abbas", .

6. In "J.R.Raghupathy & Others Vs. State of A.P. & Others", .

7. "Kumari Regina Vs. St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School & Another", (1972) 4 SCC 188.

8. "Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs. The State of Punjab & Others",

9. "B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute & Others",

10. "Union of India Vs. Joseph & Others", AIR 1973 SC 393

11. "Dr.(Mrs.) Sumati P. Shere Vs. Union of India & Others", .

12. "Union of India & Another Vs. K.S. Subramanian", 1989 Supp (1) SCC 331

13. "Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta Vs. Patel Narandas Haribhai",

14. "Indira Bai Vs. Nand Kishore",

15. "Purshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India", .

16. "Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India & Another",

17. "Jarnail Singh & Others etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Others",

18. "Dr. L.P. Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Others", .

19. "Union of India & Others Vs. N.P.Dhamania & Others", 1995 (5) SLR 509

20. "The State of Bihar & Others Vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra", 1970 SLR 863

21. "Jagdish Prasad Shastri Vs. State of U.P. & Others", 1970 SLR 938

22. "C.Thiraviam Vs. State of Kerala", 1976 (2) SLR 395.

28. In view of the discussion above, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the decision elaborately. The petitioner is deemed to have been repatriated on administrative grounds and as per the terms of his appointment, he was repatriated on his attaining the age of superannuation. The order of repatriation is sustained only on this ground.

29. The writ petition is dismissed.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.