Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Trivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15226
1 WP-41015-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41015 of 2024
ANIL KUMAR TRIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Counsel along with Ashwini Johri -
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Jitesh Sharma - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Mr. Sameer Kumar Shrivastava and Mr. Chandra Prakash Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent [R-4].
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P/1)
whereby, after recording that the explanation to the show cause notice is not
found satisfactory and the administrative work is affected because of his
working, the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent Department i.e.
School Education Department.
2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the respondents
invited the application for appointment on deputation by way of selection on
post of BRCC on 19.07.2022 (Annexure P/3). As per clause 4 of said
advertisement, the deputation is to be made for a period of four years. The
petitioner, who was working as Ucch Madhyamik Shikshak, applied for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15226
2 WP-41015-2024
appointment on deputation on the post of Block Resource Center
Coordinator. He was selected and accordingly appointed on deputation vide
order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/4) in Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Kelaras.
As per clause 4 of the advertisement, in normal circumstances, the petitioner
would have continued for a period of four years i.e. upto December, 2026.
3. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.12.2024
(Annexure P/5), whereby, certain allegations were made against him and he
was required to give his explanation within a period of two days, failing
which, it was stated that ex parte proceedings will be conduced against him.
Show cause notice also states that the allegations made against him constitute
misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules. Petitioner gave detailed reply to the show cause notice on 11.12.2024
(Annexure P/6), thereafter, impugned order has been passed, whereby, he has
been repatriated in his parent department. With regard to the explanation
given by the petitioner, the impugned order only states that the same is not
found satisfactory.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the
impugned order, raises two fold contentions. Firstly, that the petitioner's
appointment as BRCC was made by way of selection, therefore, he could not
have been sent back by the respondents/authorities without completion of
four years period. He placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Ashok
Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC
757 , where the Apex Court considered the differences between "appointment
on deputation" and "transfer on deputation".
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15226
3 WP-41015-2024
5. It is his submission that if the petitioner was selected after due
selection and was offered appointment on deputation, and, in absence of any
valid grounds, he has a right to continue on the post of deputation for a
period of four years. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned
order is totally non speaking inasmuch as the explanation, given by the
petitioner, was not taken into account. He submitted that the petitioner has
given point wise reply to the allegations made in the show cause notice and
if the same is considered in proper perspective, the impugned order could not
have been passed. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Counsel for the State supported the impugned
order and submitted that the petitioner is posted as BRCC on deputation, he
cannot claim any right to continue on the said post. Counsel for the
respondent/State referred to the documents filed along with the return and
submitted that there were various complaints received against the petitioner
and in relation to which, a show cause notice was issued to him. On account
of certain irregularities, his salary was also deducted. He therefore, submitted
that if the petitioner's working was not found satisfactory, the respondents
have authority to repatriate the petitioner to his parent Department, he
therefore, prays for dismissal of the petitioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The law regarding "appointment on deputation" by selection is well
settled by virtue of the Apex Court's judgment in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel
(Supra), where the Apex Court held in Paragraph 15 as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15226
4 WP-41015-2024
"15. The present case is not a case of transfer on deputation. It is a
case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was
issued and after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued
in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, it was not open
for the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim
deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining
of most eligible selected candidate except for ground of
unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance."
9. Thus, in the absence of any justified reasons, the petitioner has a
right to continue on deputation for a period of four years, as provided in
Clause 4 of the advertisement. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the
respondents are justified in repatriating the petitioner by passing the
impugned order on the ground of petitioner's unsuitability.
10. The reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner on
11.12.2024 (Annexure P/6) goes to show that he has given detailed
explanation in relation to each allegation made in the show cause notice.
However, the respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer and District Project
Director, Morena failed to take into account his explanation and has passed
the impugned order only by observing that the reply is not found
satisfactory.
11. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Oryx
Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2010
(13) SCC 427, held in para 36 as under:-
"The appellant gave a reply to the show cause notice but in the
order of the third respondent by which registration certificate of
the appellant was cancelled, no reference was made to the reply of
the appellant, except saying that it is not satisfactory. The
cancellation order is totally a non-speaking one. The relevant
portion of the cancellation order is set out:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15226
5 WP-41015-2024
12. Keeping in view of the aforesaid decision, in the instant case also it
is found that the impugned order passed by the respondents/Authorities is
non speaking and reflects non application of mind, therefore, the order dated
17.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set
aside.
13. At this stage, the parties informed that the petitioner has already
been repatriated to his parent Department, and another person has already
joined in his place. Therefore, it is directed that Respondent No. 3 shall
consider the petitioner's explanation submitted by him on 11.12.2024
(Annexure P/6), and shall pass a speaking order after considering his
explanation. If the decision on the show-cause notice goes in favor of the
petitioner, the petitioner shall be restored to the post of BRCC.
14. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
