Delhi High Court
Dr. Ramesh Chand vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 22 October, 2019
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.10.2019
+ W.P.(C) 10510/2019
DR. RAMESH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Chhabra, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman S. Bakhshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 43391/2019 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 10510/2019 page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 10510/2019
The present petition is directed against order dated 31.07.2019
by which the OA filed by the petitioner stands dismissed by the
Tribunal. The petitioner is working as a Veterinary Surgeon in the
Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, State of Haryana. He
proceeded on deputation to North DMC for a period of one year w.e.f.
27.03.2019. On 12.07.2019, the petitioner was repatriated to the parent
department, which led to the filing of the OA.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the
Tribunal is bad in law and suffers from various legal infirmities. He
states that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that as per
Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010 issued by the DoP&T, more
particularly Clause 9, the period of deputation is ordinarily one year.
He submits that before the petitioner was sent on deputation, vigilance
clearance was sought and there was nothing pending against the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no
infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has taken
into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the
respondents that after the petitioner joined the place of deputation, the
respondent learned that the vigilance clearance obtained was not
proper ; that several criminal cases were pending against him ; and
based on the said record, it was deemed appropriate to repatriate the
petitioner to his parent department.
W.P.(C) No. 10510/2019 page 2 of 4
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
5. It is not in dispute that ordinarily deputation is for one year and
as far as possible an employee is allowed to complete his tenure.
6. However, para 9 of O.M. dated 17.06.2010 issued by the DoP &
T reads as under :
"9. Premature reversion of deputationists to parent
cadre.
Normally, when an employee is appointed
on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed
at the disposal of the parent Ministry/ Department at
the end of the tenure. However, as and when a
situation arises for premature reversion to the parent
cadre of the deputationists, his services could be so
returned after giving an advance notice of at least
three months to the lending Ministry/Department and
the employee concerned."
7. A careful reading of this O.M. would show that there is no rule
that a person cannot be repatriated before expiry of the period of
deputation. Premature reversion to the parent department is in fact
contemplated in the OM.
8. In the present case, the reason for repatriation is the pendency
of criminal cases against the petitioner, including one under
Prevention of Corruption Act, in which he was later acquitted;
however, we are informed that an FIR No.51/2018 is still pending
under Section 306 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner explains that till
W.P.(C) No. 10510/2019 page 3 of 4
date the petitioner has not even been called to the police station nor
any action has been taken against him. However in our view, since, by
reason of his record, the petitioner does not enjoy the confidence of
the respondents, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the
Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere by way of the
present petition ; and the same is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
OCTOBER 22, 2019/uj
W.P.(C) No. 10510/2019 page 4 of 4
