HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26858 OF 2010 Between: B. Subash S/o late B. Neemubu Rao aged about 40 years ………….Petitioner AND The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, A.P. Hyderabad and six others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Memo dated 14.10.2010 and the order dated 22.10.2010 issued in O.A.No. 7257 of 2010 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to set aside the same as illegal. O.A.No.7257 of 2010 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the impugned Memo dated 14.10.2010 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to continue the applicant on deputation to ACB with all consequential benefits. That O.A was dismissed observing that there is no force in the contention of the applicant that 3rd respondent is not competent to pass the repatriation order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant- petitioner is working as a Police Constable with regular Police. He was deputed to the Office of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad for a period of three years through proceedings of the second respondent dated 11.2.2010. It is stated that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 13.9.2010 repatriating the applicant from Anti Corruption Bureau to Ranga Reddy District on administrative grounds. Therefore, the applicant-petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.9.2010 to the first respondent requesting to cancel the repatriation orders issued by the 3rd respondent. The applicant-petitioner also filed O.A.No. 6339 of 2010 before the Tribunal assailing the repatriation orders and the Tribunal passed an interim order on 25.9.2010 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the applicant dated 14.9.2010. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent passed orders dated 14.10.2010 dismissing the appeal of the applicant. Hence, he filed O.A.No. 7257 of 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government issued G.O. (P) No. 10, Finance (FR-II) Department, dated 22.1.1993, clearly mentioning that the total deputation period shall not exceed 5 years and the initial period of 3 years can be sanctioned by the Heads of Department concerned and for extension beyond 3 years and up to a further period of 2 years, the Secretary to Government is competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue in ACB for a period of five years or three years from the date of deputation. He also submits that instead of continuing the petitioner in ACB for the deputation period as per the orders issued by the 2nd respondent-Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 11.2.2010 , the third respondent has unjustly issued the impugned orders repatriating the petitioner to his parent department on the pretext of administrative grounds and later the first respondent confirmed the impugned action of the 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 14.10.2010 which is contrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner was deputed to the Office of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad for a period of three years through proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 11.2.2010. The third respondent-Director ACB issued proceedings dated 13.9.2010 repatriating the petitioner from Anti Corruption Bureau to Ranga Reddy District on administrative grounds. In the impugned proceedings it was mentioned that when the petitioner was advised to collect some details about a particular property of a suspected Officer in Nalgonda District, he passed on the information and also copy of source report prepared by the Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau to some other person and that he failed to maintain integrity and exhibited gross irresponsibility in not maintaining secrecy of the source information. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner worked against the interest of the ACB Department and it was decided that the continuation of the applicant in the ACB department is detrimental to the interest of the Bureau. When once the administrative powers are delegated, it includes transfer of the employees, taking the employees on deputation and repatriating them if their services are not satisfactory. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and dismissed the O.A. We see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and also we do not find any jurisdictional error to interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cots. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ P. SWAROOP EDDY, J DATE: 29.10.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.