Arastu Prabhakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 7966 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arastu Prabhakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025

                                        1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT G WA L I O R
                                    BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
                     WRIT PETITION No. 4513 of 2024
                               ARASTU PRABHAKAR
                              Versus
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERES


Appearance:

Mr. Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naval Kishore Gupta- Government Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2 - State.

Mr. Vivek Khedkar - Senior counsel with Mr. Kartik Karara - Advocate for

respondent no.3.


                                    ORDER

                   Reserved on :     11.08.2025
                   Delivered on :    26.08.2025
                                    ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 29.12.2023, (Annexure P/1) whereby his request for sending him back to his parent Bank has been declined by respondent no.3. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents to restore his service conditions by relieving him for his parent cooperative Bank i.e. DCCB, Morena.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner

was initially appointed as Cadre Officer in Grade-II, in M.P. State Cooperative Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Apex Bank"). It appears that he was sent on deputation on the post of General Manager to District Central Cooperative Bank Maryadit ((hereinafter referred to as "DCCB") Morena. The process for his absorption in DCCB, Morna was initiated in furtherance of which respondent no.2 gave its 'no objection' for petitioner's absorption on the post of Chief Executive Officer, DCCB, Morena, vide memo, dated 7.9.2010 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner was accordingly absorbed on the post of Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director, DCCB, Morna, vide order, dated 13.09.2010, (Annexure P/5). The Apex Bank also gave its consent for petitioner's absorption in DCCB, Morena and his name was removed from the rolls of Apex Bank vide order, dated 25.03.2011, (Annexure P/5-A). The petitioner thus became the employee of DCCB, Morena.

3. The Apex Bank passed an order on 30.11.2019, (Annexure P/6) thereby taking the petitioner's services on deputation on the post of Additional Chief Executive Officer. This order was passed after the approval from respondent no.2. It appears, the petitioner was then posted as Chief Executive Officer at District Cooperative Bank, Bhopal vide order, dated 02.01.2020. The petitioner made a representation for his repatriation to DCCB, Morena vide application, dated 27.03.2020, (Annexure P/7) on the ground of his health condition. The application received favourable consideration and the petitioner was repatriated to DCCB, Morena vide order, dated 04.04.2020, (Annexure P/8). However, immediately within 13 days, he was again taken on deputation by Apex Bank and was posted as Chief Executive Officer, DCB, Bhopal, vide order, dated 17.04.2020, (Annexure P/9).

4. It appears that on the proposal given by DCCB, Gwalior, the petitioner was sent on deputation on the post of Chief Executive Officer to DCCB, Gwalior vide order, dated 15.01.2022, (Annexure P/10). This order was also passed by Apex Bank. The petitioner represented against his services being given on deputation to DCCB, Gwalior vide application, dated 08.04.2022, to Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department and on 12.04.2022 to Apex Bank. His requests remained unattended again.

5. In relation to low progress of DCCB, Gwalior, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order, dated 01.06.2022, (Annexure P/11) and his Head Quarter was fixed at Apex Bank, Head Office at Bhopal. Surprisingly, the petitioner had worked only for a period of four and half months at DCCB, Gwalior. This suspension order was passed by DCCB, Morena which is the petitioner's employer. The petitioner's suspension was later on revoked vide order, dated 29.06.2022, (Annexure P/12) passed by DCCB, Morena and he continued to work at Head Office of Apex Bank.

6. The petitioner again represented against his transfer on deputation to Bhopal, Gwalior etc. vide application, dated 12.07.2022, (Annexure P/13). He raised the objection with regard to jurisdiction of Apex Bank to transfer petitioner from one place to another and his repeated deputation without his consent. He again requested for his posting as CEO at DCCB, Morena. However, his request was not favourably considered. Instead, once again the petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer, DCCB, Shivpuri, by the order of Apex Bank, dated 29.09.2022, (Annexure R/8). He was then given additional charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer, DCCB, Guna, vide order, dated 07.12.2022, passed by Apex Bank (Annexure R/8 of reply). Further, the petitioner was transferred and posted as CEO, DCCB, Guna,

vide order of Apex Bank, dated 14.08.2023, (Annexure R/8 of reply).

7. When no action was taken on his applications, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.16865/23 and W.P. No.21405/23. The writ petitions were disposed off by this Court vide order, dated 05.09.2023, (Annexure P/3) thereby directing respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh or any other competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's application by passing reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the impugned order, dated 29.12.2023, (Annexure P/1) has been passed by Apex Bank thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for his repatriation to his parent Bank viz. DCCB, Morena. In the impugned order, for the first time, the reason for declining the petitioner's request is stated to be Lokayukt/departmental enquiry against the petitioner pending at Morena. Regarding competence of Apex Bank to pass orders of deputation/transfer of petitioner, it is stated that since the Apex Bank provides funds to DCCB, Morena, it is the duty of Apex Bank to protect the business and the interest of DCCB, Morena.

8. The respondent no.3, Apex Bank, has filed its short reply thereby justifying its action in sending petitioner on deputation. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier suspended and the suspension was later on revoked on 04.10.2019. However, since by that time another incumbent was already posted at its place in DCCB, Morena, the petitioner could not be posted at DCCB, Morena. It is further stated that exercising powers under Section 54 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, (in short 'Act') the Registrar has amended service rules of Apex Bank. As per the amended rules, every DCCB should have one cadre officer from Apex Bank. It is its case that as per amended rule, one cadre officer of Apex Bank, namely Shri S.K. Kannojiya, has been

posted as Chief Executive Officer, DCCB, Morena. It is also stated in the reply that the consent of petitioner was sought to accept absorption as cadre officer of Apex Bank vide letter, dated 19.11.2019, (Annexure R/2) however, he did not give his consent. Resultantly, the petitioner was posted as CEO at Bhopal vide order, dated 02.12.2019, (Annexure R/3).

9. Thus in substance, the Apex Bank has taken a stand that since its service rules have been amended thereby providing for posting of its cadre officer as CEO of DCCBs, the petitioner could not be posted as CEO at DCCB, Morena. It is submitted in the reply that since the petitioner is facing two enquiries- one departmental enquiry at Morena and another by Lokayukt, the petitioner cannot be posted as CEO of DCCB, Morena.

10. The learned counsel for petitioner, challenging the impugned order, submitted that after the petitioner was absorbed in DCCB, Morena with the consent of Apex Bank, the Apex Bank has no jurisdiction to direct petitioner's deputation to Apex Bank or to any other Bank. He submitted that the order of deputation of an employee cannot be passed without the consent of concerned employee and the petitioner cannot be forced to work under any authority who is not his employer.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 supported the impugned order and advanced same arguments as has been taken in the reply and which has been referred hereinabove.

12. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was earlier working as Cadre Officer Grade II in Apex Bank and his services were absorbed on the post of CEO, DCCB, Morena, vide order, dated 13.09.2010. Needless to mention, his absorption was pursuant to no objection given by respondent no.2 and

with the consent of Apex Bank. The petitioner thus became the employee of DCCB, Morena and ceased to be the employee of Apex Bank.

14. The issue for consideration in this case is as to whether, after the petitioner ceased to be the employee of Apex Bank and became employee of DCCB, Morena, the Apex Bank can direct for transfer on deputation of petitioner, that too without his consent?

15. It is a settled legal proposition that an employee cannot be sent on deputation to work under another employer without his consent. This has been so held by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Inder Singh reported in (1997)8 SCC 372 wherein the Court held in para 18 as under:

"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning."Deputation"

has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.