IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8249 of 2007 KAMAL DEO PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 07 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. Despite valid service of notice on respondent no.7, the Director General of Police, Mizoram, there is no appearance on his behalf. Respondent no.8, Superintendent of Police (W) Mizoram, who is now deemed to be well aware of the proceedings by reason of service on respondent no.8 is also not represented. Learned counsel for the State has placed a wireless communication dated 13.7.2007 received by the office of the Additional Advocate General from the Superintendent of Police (W), Mizoram in context of the present case. Notice has also been served on by Director General of Police, Mizoram, by the Additional District Magistrate (J) Aizwal, as intimated by the letter to the Assistant Registrar (J) of this Court by letter dated 08.11.2007. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (Wireless) in the Mizoram Police, when he was promoted temporarily to the rank of Head 2 Constable (operations) on 14.04.1987. It appears that on 26.9.1988 upon a request made by him, and communication to that effect sent by the State of Bihar, he was released by the Mizoram Police on 6.10.2008 to join the Bihar Police on deputation. The Director General of Police, Bihar on 16.12.2008 accepted his joining on deputation subject to Government approval. On 29.3.1989 the Government queried under what circumstances the deputation had been warranted. As a consequence, the office of the Director General of Police relieved him on 28.3.1999, by repatriation for joining at Mizoram. He then represented. On 15.5.1990, the Director General (Technical Services) stayed the repatriation order till disposal of the representation. In July, 1990 his seniority in the rank of the Constable in Bihar Police was also determined in the seniority list. On 28.6.1999 allegedly without disposal of his representation, he was again directed to be repatriated to Mizoram when he again represented. On 28.10.1999 the Director General of Police, Bihar ordered for his absorption in the State Police on humanitarian grounds and seniority, to be given according to Rules. On 28.9.2001 the Mizoram 3 Police relieved him from their ranks consequent to his absorption in the State of Bihar. On 13.6.2007 the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar stated that the continuance of the petitioner in the Bihar Police was contrary to law and compliance report be sent immediately. The petitioner continued in the Bihar Police when on 30.6.2007 orders have been passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Wireless) that his continuance in the Bihar Police was illegal in context of the Home (Police) letter dated 13.6.2006 and repatriated him to the State of Mizoram. The petitioner is stated to have then been relieved and his L.P.C. was sent to Mizoram on 2.7.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that he is without salary since 2.7.2007 and, therefore, the writ petition came to be filed in that context seeking quashing of the order dated 30.6.2007. A person on deputation has no right to continue on the deputed post except in terms of the deputation order. Repatriation is a risk that he takes. Therefore, the petitioner can not stake a claim simplicitor to continue in the services of the 4 State of Bihar by deemed absorption. If his joining on deputation in the State of Bihar was conditional to approval of the State of Bihar, and the approval was not forthcoming or is denied as presently appears to be the case, he has no defence against his repatriation. To that extent, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 30.6.2007. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that it is not the petitioner alone who has at fault. It is the senior officials of the Department of Police who are also at fault. They have passed one order or the other at different times at variation with each other conscious of the fact that the Government had not approved the deputation. This Court is satisfied that it shall not be doing justice in the true sense of the term, if the petitioner is made to stand alone at the receiving and by holding that he managed his affairs. There was another who was willinged to be managed. The petitioner was a Constable. Those who got managed were senior officials. This Court would not like to observe anything further strict interpretation of law would require the petitioner to be repatriated to Mizoram. The latter has already relieved him from their roll on 28.9.2001. The Mizoram Police has chosen not to 5 enter appearance despite valid service of notice. This Court, therefore, holds that prima facie the petitioner has no legal right to claim absorption in the State of Bihar. But he cannot be left nearly 21 years in the lurch after to find himself neither in the services of the State of Bihar or the Mizoram Police. The senior officials who took the decision to absorb him conditionally are also answerable for their conduct. The petitioner cannot be the pawn alone to be slashed in this legal imbroglio. This court, therefore, directs the Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar to establish contact with the Director General of Police, Mizoram. If the Police authority at Mizoram is willing to accept the petitioner in the Mizoram Police, the petitioner must go back. At this stage he could not raise any objection with regard to loss of seniority etc. in the Mizoram Police. That is a burden he must bear and for which he is also responsible. If the Mizoram Polcie declines to accept him, he has to be absorbed in the State of Bihar Police Service. In that event he obviously again has to forego his seniority to be re-determined from the 6 date of the present order. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, who is expected to adequately communicate this order to the authority at Mizoram who shall equally be bound for expeditious compliance of the order within the time fixed. The impugned order dated 30.6.2007, shall not be an obstacle or impediment for the parties in any manner for such fresh decision. The issue of any salary has to be considered by the appropriate authority at Mizoram or in the State of Bihar, thereafter in accordance with law, if the petitioner so represents. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)