Delhi High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 September, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18th September, 2020.
+ W.P.(C) 6500/2020 & CM APPL. 22803/2020 (for stay).
RAJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Adv. with Dy.
Commandant Krishan Yadav.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner, a Sub Inspector in the respondent no.2 Sashastra
Seema Bal (SSB) and selected in the respondent no.3 National Security
Guard (NSG) and deputed to NSG for a period of five years, has filed this
petition impugning the order dated 8th September, 2020 whereby the
petitioner has been prematurely repatriated from respondent no.3 NSG to
respondent no2 SSB; mandamus is also sought, directing retention of the
petitioner in the respondent no.3 NSG, till the completion of five years of
his deputation tenure.
2. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, what is the
right of the petitioner to remain on deputation for entire tenure of five years
and why is it contended that the respondent no.2 SSB, inspite of being the
parent organisation of the petitioner, is not entitled to prematurely
repatriate the petitioner to itself.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the Office
Memorandum (OM) dated 30th March, 2019 whereby the petitioner was
deputed to the respondent no.3 NSG for a period of five years, to contend
that the petitioner has a right thereunder, to remain on deputation for the
period of five years.
4. However paragraph 2 of the said OM itself provides that the period
of deputation of five years is subject to premature repatriation on the
grounds of unsuitability, indiscipline and exigency of service as well as if
any other unforeseen factors so demand.
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not know
which of the aforesaid grounds on which alone premature repatriation is
permissible, is invoked qua the petitioner.
6. However again, a perusal of the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2020
shows the reason for premature repatriation recorded as "in view of pending
COI/disciplinary proceedings".
7. The counsel for the petitioner draws attention to paragraph 3 of the
OM dated 25th January, 2019 certifying that "no disciplinary proceeding is
pending or being contemplated against" the petitioner and contends that the
petitioner till now does not know what disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated against the petitioner.
8. The matter was passed over to enable the counsel for the respondents
to obtain instructions.
9. Post passover the counsel for the respondents has appeared along
with Deputy Commandant Krishan Yadav of SSB who states that, (i) the
petitioner joined the respondent no.3 NSG on 10th March, 2019; and, (ii) on
17th October, 2019, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner; it is
explained that the petitioner was responsible/in charge for promotion of
those officers who had attained the age of 50 years or had completed 25
years of service and was detected to have not performed his said duties,
while in the respondent no.2 SSB.
10. Once it is so, the petitioner, even if disputes the aforesaid
charge/allegation against him, will have to contest the inquiry initiated
against him and which inquiry cannot possibly be conducted while the
petitioner remains deputed to the respondent no.3 NSG and the holding of
the inquiry cannot be deferred for five years.
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Dayanand Katariya Vs. Union of
India 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13139, relying on Union of India Vs. V.
Ramakrishnan (2005) 8 SCC 394 held that a order of reversion can be
questioned only when the same is mala fide; else neither a deputationist has
a legal right to continue to the post nor he has a right to be absorbed in the
post to which he is deputed. To the same effect is, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs.
Union of India 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4629 (DB) and Brig. V. Jaikumar
Vs. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1321.
12. We may mention that the petition does not even have a whisper of
any mala fide in repatriation of petitioner.
13. Once the petitioner is not found to have any right to remain on
deputation for the initial period and which initial period itself was subject to
curtailment for the reasons specified and once the premature repatriation is
disclosed to be for the grounds on which the same is permitted, no case for
entertaining the petition is made out.
14. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ASHA MENON, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
'pp'
