N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E A T B I L A S P U C H H A T T I S G A R H s ! m m 3 E § g m W . P . N o . l $ ‘ L 3 / 2 o o e . V S a n j a y S i n g h , S / o S h r i R . D . S i n g h , A g e d a b o u t 3 3 y e a r s , P r e s e n t l y w o r k i n g a s S u b — i n s p e c t o r T r a n s p o r t , R / o D a n i R a j h a r a , D i s t t . D u r g ( C . G . ) P E T I T I O N E R V E R S U S 1 . S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h — T h r o u g h t h e S e c r e t a r y , H o m e D e p a r t m e n t , D . K . S . B h a w a n , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) 2 . D i r e c t o r G e n e r a l o f P o H c e , P o l i c e “ " r l - ‘ l d L Q t r s q R a i p u r ( C . G . ) r — h . 3 . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f T r a n s p o r t o f C h h a t t i s g a r h , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) 4 . A d d i t i o n a l T r a n s p o r t C o m m i s s i o n e r , B u s S t a n d , P a n d r i , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 l § 2 7 O F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A F O R I S S U A N C E O F A P P R O P R I A T E W R I T , W R I T S , O R D E R , D I R E C T I O N S E T C . ’ m R A^R HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2298 of 2006 PETITIONER : Ajay Sharma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS ; ^, Post for order on .. 4^: day ofApril, 2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2298 of 2006 \^ PETFTIONER RESPONDENTS Present Ajay Sharma, S/o C.L. Sharma, Age 40, Working as Sub- Inspector at Checkpost Bhagatdevri, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home (Police) Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Transport Commissioner Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). S.Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters Raipur (CG). Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate wifh Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETmONER RESPONDENTS Present Writ Petition No. 2301 of 2006 S.P. Karosia, S/o Late H.R. Karosia, Age 48, Working as Inspector at Checkpost Bhagatdevri, Distt. Mahasamimd (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home (Police) Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Transport Coinmissioner Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). 3. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters Raipur (CG). Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS h< Writ Petition No. 2314 of 2006 L.P. Dwivedi, S/o Chandra Shekhar Prasad Dwivedi, Presently working as Sub-Inspector, Transport, Aged about 52 years, R/o Ganga Nagar, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). 3. Commissioner ofTransport ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 4. Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETRTIONER Writ Petition No. 2315 of2006 Jodh Singh Saggu, S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh Saggu, Presently working as Sub-Inspector, Transport, Aged about 50 years, R/o K Pocket, Qtr. No. 6-B, Morda Sector, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). 3. Commissioner ofTransport ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 4. Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Semor Advocate with Sliri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Writ Petition No. 2318 of 2006 Anil Sharma, S/o Late S.K. Sharma, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Sub-Inspector, Transport, R/o D-7, P&P Colony, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). Commissioner ofTransport ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur(CG). Present : Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETITIONER P 3PONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Writ Petition No. 2320 of2006 Suresh Dhruva S/o Shri S. R. Dhruva, Aged about 35 years, Presently working as Sub-Inspector, Transport, R/o At Post Govindpur, Distt. Kanker (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). Coinmissioner ofTransport of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Maneesh Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. Writ Petition No. 2321 of2006 PETmONER T.C. Tatiya, S/o Shri C.L. Tatiya, Aged about 48 years, Presently working as Sub-Inspector Transport, R/o Sector 10, Street No. 45, Qtr. No. 8-B, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Du-ector General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). 3. Commissioner ofTransport of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 4. Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETFTIONER RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Writ Petition No. 2322 of 2006 Mohd. Farhan Qureshi, S/o Hazi A.R. Qureshi, Presently working as Sub-Inspector Transport, Aged about 38 years, R/o S-4 Adarsh Nagar, Durg (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (CG). Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). Commissioner ofTransport ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. KacKhwaha, DeputyAdvocate General for the State/respondents. PETmONER RESPQNDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Writ PetitionNo. 2323 of 2006 Sanjay Singh S/o Shri R.D. Singh, Aged about 33 years, Presently working as Sub-Inspector Transport, R/o Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). Commissioner ofTransport ofChhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2006 PETmONER RESPQNDENTS Bhavesh Sao, S/o Late Shri B.K. Sao, Presently working as Sub-Inspector Transport, Aged about 42 years, R/o 13-B, A-Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhiali, Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh-Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director General ofPolice, Police Hd. Qtrs. Raipur (CG). 3. Commissioner ofTransport of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 4. Additional Transport Commissioner, Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). Present : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No. 5886 of 2005 Munna Khan S/o Habib Uddin, Age 49, Working as Constable at Checkpost Bhagatdevri, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home (Police) Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Transport Commissioner Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG). 3. Deputy Secretary, C.G. Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (WKTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on ...If.^.day of April, 2008) 1. In this batch ofpetitions, the common question of law involved is asto whether the petitioners, who were sent on deputation to the Transport department can be repatriated m fhe parent department i.e. Home CPolice) department wifhout consent ofbofh the parties, before expiry ofthe period ofdeputation. 2. The petitioners, who are Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Constable, belong to the Home (Police) department. By orders dated 23.07.2005, 29.04.2004, and 21.04.2005, the petitioners were sent on deputation to the Transport department. The period of deputation was two years. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have been repatnated before expiry of the deputation period without there being any allegation of unsuitability against the petitioners, to the parent department. 3. The petitioners have filed these petitions impugning the orders dated 11.11.2005, 8.2.2006 and 09.03.2006 passed by the Home (Police) department and flie order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Additional Transport Commissioner, i.e. the borrowing department, whereby the petitioners were posted in the Home (Policej IV,.. :i \^ ;/ departmeat. 4. The contention of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were repatriated beforecompletion oftwo years of deputation. Secondly, the policy ofpick and choose was adopted. Thirdly, the borrowing department i.e. the Transport departmeat has ao power to transfer the petitioners and post them in the Police department, without repatriating the petitioners to the Police department. Fourthly, fhe order of traasfer is contrary to the transfer policy. 5. Shri A. S. Kachhwaha, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents, per eontra, submits that it is the privilege of the employer to repatriate back the petitioners, even before completion ofthe period ofdeputation. Secondly, the orders dated 11.11.2005, 8.2.2006 and 9.3.2006 were passed by fhe Home (Police) department, whereas the order dated 28.4.2006 was passed by the Transport department m compliance of the order passed by fhe Home (Police) department. Thus, it should be deemed to have been consented by the parent department as well as the borrowing department. 6. The question of law, as stated hereinabove, came into consideration in the matter ofRadhe Lal Nag v. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others W.P.(S) No. 3997 of 2007, decided on 27.03.2008, whereia this Court, after having examined the circular dated 02.12.1988 dealing withthe period ofdeputation, held as under: '6. As per the circular dated 2.12.1988 (Annexure P/3) in nonnal cases the minimum period ofdeputation is two years, which can be extended for a period of four years. The relevant clause of the cu'cular dated 2.12.1988 (Annexure P/3), reads as under: ".........(2) yfaPi^Rfl ^>T 'EPH ^rsr ^ .3TIE[R tR ?t^ c^ 'giRRT 'EPH f^ •q^ srf^T ^\ ^qT^ q?q ^ ^T-^t cl^ ^ ^-Et cft ^T.ft ^nf^ | ^S 31^ ^f f^Tpff ^V •ygtfRi ^t ^?[ ftdl+^ 'EIR q^ ?R; slS^ ^(T ^fc^ft q ^t ^fff ift ~g\5Kl ^ Mfdpl^Rfl ^R 'EIR q^ ^ SiqfSr ^ <14'<l-d sl^ yi!sl|<j-;il ^t ^, c»)|R<t) ^tlTT ^- ini^r gppTR-T HTCT f^ ft^ '•^ 'VSI W^ 1 ^ WRcf yRlPl^f^l WTO s|^ c^- !R»vrq^ 3(c(fg|- •^T[Ti<r ^ ^ ^T T(Tg- ^ 'ipif^cp Rr*iTn' q?r yiiii'y^ii sryfr^i ^ \i4'<i'^f 'gw% ^ffftteT ^ <iiti«?<< ^fW ^f SfSKf^ '^PpfpT ^f^lcf ^^f ^ 'HW ^ STIST 1 ........" It is furfher held that the deputationist is entitled to remain for a minimum period of two years fi-om the date of his joining in the borrowing department. The services of fhe deputationist cannot be repatriated before two years without consent. 7. Hon'ble tiie Supreme Court Court in ftie matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others while considering fhe deputation and repatriation to the parent cadre/department on expiry ofperiod of deputation held as under:- "18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meanmg 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 fhe 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 eamed promotion m 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 fi-om which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent ofthe 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 variousjudgments which we have referred to above............." 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court m fhe case of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and another^ has defmed 'deputation' in the following tenns:- "Deputation can be aptly described as an assigmnent of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) ofone department or cadre or even an organization (coinmonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision ofthe employer to lend the services ofhis employee and a corresponding acceptance ofsuchservice by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. '(199T)8SCC372 2(1999)4S.C.C.659 9. Further, in the matter ofKunal Nanda v. Union oflndia and anotherj, the Supreme Court held as under: "6... .The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concemed can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve any substantive position therein at the instance of eifher ofthe departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to whichhehadgoneondeputation...." Subsequently, this has been approved by the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P.Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and others v. Daya Ram Saroj and ofhers . lO.The contention ofleamed counsel appearing for the petitioners that the borrowing department i.e. the Transport department has no power to ta-ansfer the petitioners is without any basis as the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Additional Transport Commissioner was passed in compliance offhe order dated 9.3.2006, passed by the Home CPolice) department. ll.It is well settled principle of law that an employee cannot be sent on deputation without his consent but his repatriation does not depend on his coiisent after completion of deputation period. However, in the case of an employee if his suitability to the post is under question because ofmisdemeanor or other conduct, the borrowing department may repatriate th& employee to the parent department prematurely or parent department may consider to repatriate the deputationist prematurely. 12.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent authorities are directed to apply the question of law as settled to the facts of each case and pass appropriate order as the fact of completion of period of deputation is still disputed. These petitions are allowed to the extent fhat the petitioners may be permitted to remain on deputation for a period oftwo years fi-om the date oftheirjoining, and in cases 3 (2000)58cc 362 "(2007) 2 SCC 138 <!?"' -^) wherein fhe petitioners have completed two years of deputation period, they may be repatnated back by fhe respondents without consent ofthe petitioners. 13.Accordmgly, the orders dated 11.11.2005, 09.03.2006 and 28.04.2006, are quashed to the extent mdicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ,/Sahu -^