IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9864 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 01, 2010 INSPECTOR SIKANDER SINGH No.761/PAP ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KG Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. IS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 11.6.2009 and 15.6.2009, Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. In order (Annexure P-2), it has been said that the petitioner has already completed 2 years of deputation with Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and, therefore, deputation with Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Civil Writ Petition No.9864 of 2009 2 is cancelled. In order (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has been asked to be relieved. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the first count, has argued that persons with longer period of deputation have been allowed to continue on deputation. The respondents are adverting to pick and choose policy, which is not permissible in law. 3. On second count, it has been contended that the recommendation of repatriation of the petitioner is by Mayor of Municipal Corporation, who would have no jurisdiction or legal authority. Only Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation could recommend repatriation. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already completed the period of deputation. 5. In regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that persons with longer deputation have been allowed to continue, however, the petitioner has been repatriated, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any service rule or instructions that would bind the respondents to follow rule of relieving person from deputation on consideration of length of service on deputation. This is particularly so because the petitioner has been repatriated only after conclusion of his deputation period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any rule or instruction which would confer a right on the petitioner to continue on deputation even after conclusion of the period of deputation. 6. In regard to the second contention of the learned counsel for Civil Writ Petition No.9864 of 2009 3 the petitioner, since complaints have been received against the petitioner, as have been placed on record by respondent No.1 with the written statement as Annexures R-1/7 to R-1/9, I find no fault in recommendation of the Mayor in asking the department to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department. It is only a recommendatory action and the competence of the authority who has issued the orders repatriating or relieving the petitioner is not in question. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any vested right in the petitioner to continue on deputation in another department viz. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, although the petitioner is in police department, serving as Inspector. 8. Other than the above, in written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, it has been said that a number of complaints (Annexures R-1/7 to R-1/9) were received against the petitioner. A perusal of the complaints indicates that the petitioner has not been effective in discharge of his duties, as required by the Municipal Corporation. Whenever the petitioner and his team is asked to assist the Enforcement Staff, it has been observed that the petitioner stands in one corner at a distance and does not give assistance to the Enforcement Staff for removal of encroachments. On another occasion, the petitioner did not take any action in controlling the persons at the site whenever the Enforcement Staff were in the process of removal of goods from place of unauthorized encroachment. The petitioner either did not reach the spot at the given time or left the duty and went away. 9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Civil Writ Petition No.9864 of 2009 4 I cannot trace any arbitrary action in the orders passed by the respondents in repatriating the petitioner, who has proved himself to be ineffective and useless where he had been asked to serve outside the parent department. The petitioner has not served the purpose of sending him on deputation to another department. It appears that the orders have been passed in administrative exigency and, therefore, no fault can be traced therein. 10. No ground for interference is made out. 11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 01, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?