Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Ct. Shamsher Singh on 4 July, 2008
Author: J.R. Midha
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+WP(C) No.3433/2007
Reserved on: 22nd May, 2008
%Date of Decision: 4th July, 2008
Union of India & Ors. ...Appellant
Through: Mr.S.K. Dubey, Advocate.
Versus
Ct. Shamsher Singh ...Respondent
Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal and Mr. U. Srivastava,
Advocates.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
J.R. Midha, J.
Respondent joined CISF as Constable in 1989 and he was
working at Mundali in 2006. Central Finger Print Bureau issued a
notification dated 2nd February, 2006, which was circulated to CISF
regarding requirement of Constable on deputation. The respondent
applied for deputation and he was finally selected and absorbed on
deputation to Central Finger Print Bureau on 25th April, 2006 and
he is continuing on the said post. Vide Notification dated 19th
March, 2007, the respondent was prematurely repatriated to his
parent Department, which was challenged by the respondent before
the learned Tribunal on the ground of violative of principles of
natural justice. The learned Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed
order dated 19th March, 2007 which is under challenge before us.
The petitioner has challenged order of the learned Tribunal on
the ground that the selection process in which the respondent was
selected was illegal as it suffered from non-consideration of
similarly situated eligible candidates, non-fulfillment of criteria in
the case of the respondent as complete ACR dossiers along with the
annexures were not forwarded. It is further contended that the
DPC was waiting for sponsoring of the candidates from CISF and
the DPC was convened in haste within 24 hrs. without preparation
of a comparative chart, suitability, fulfillment of criteria of other
candidates, which vitiated the selection procedure and, therefore,
there was no necessity to grant personal hearing to the respondent.
We have heard the parties at length and have carefully
considered their respective contentions. We have also perused the
original record. The respondent was appointed for a fixed period of
three years from 25th April, 2006 and he is entitled to hold the post
for the said period. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India through Government of Pondicherry Vs. Ramakrishnan
and others [(2005) 8 SCC 394] relying on its earlier judgment in
the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India [(1958)
SCR 828] held that in the case where deputation is for a specific
term, it cannot be curtailed except on the ground of suitability or
unsatisfactory work. We, therefore, do not agree with the
contention of the petitioner that the order dated 19 th March, 2007
does not cast any stigma on the respondent. The finding of the
learned Tribunal in this regard is correct. The Tribunal has rightly
held that since the order dated 19th March, 2007 adversely affects
the respondent, he should have been heard in the matter and,
therefore, the order dated 19th March, 2007 is liable to be set aside
for violation of principles of natural justice. We are in agreement
with the said finding that the order dated 19th March, 2007 is
violative of the principles of natural justice. We do not agree with
the petitioner that there was no necessity for personal hearing to
the respondent. With respect to the contention of the petitioner
that the selection process of the respondent is illegal as similarly
situated eligible candidates were not considered and complete ACR
dossiers were not forwarded, we have examined the relevant
records. We find that the DPC selected the respondent on 10th
March, 2006. On the same date, i.e. 10th March, 2006 Sohan
Singh, who had been working with the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB) filed a complaint and continued filing complaints
which ultimately resulted in the order dated 19th March, 2007. We
fail to understand how Sohan Singh came to know of the findings of
the DPC on the same day and he filed the complaint on the same
day. Be that as it may, we need not comment on the merits of this
case as we find the order dated 19th March, 2007 is violative of
principles of natural justice and has been rightly set aside. We,
therefore, dismiss the Writ Petition on this short ground alone.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate fresh action after
providing sufficient opportunity to the respondent before taking any
action.
(J.R. MIDHA)
JUDGE
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
July 4, 2008
s.pal
