^ og mGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPTJR Pli'TTTTONRR Rakesh Dewangan, Aged aboirt 45 years S/o Late Sliri Beiiii'am Dewaiigaii, Occupatioii Assistaiit Teacher, Primary School, Bhahjguda, R/o village and Post Sonpur, Block Bakawand, Distt. Bastar (CG). lSP0311iDENTS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh Tlirough its Secretary, Department of Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Coliector, Bastar (CG). 3. ChiefExecutive OfScer, Janpad Panehayat Bakawand, Distt. Bastar(CG). 4. District Project Coordinator, Rajiv GanfBii Shiksha Mission, Jagdalpw, Distt. Bastar (CG). 5. Sunil Kuniar Kashyap, S/o (Not faiown to fhe petitioner), Aged about 44 years, Shiakshik Samam/ayak, Middie School Karpawand, Block BAawand, Distt. Bastar (CG). (WMT PETmON IMDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTnmON OP INDIA) LSJi:_Hon'MeMr.Sati8li_K,Agy.aiotn,.J.^ Shri Vinav Pandev_ Advocate t'or the mtjtioner Shri A.S. KacUhwaha, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 4. J,OiRJ)ER (Passed on 04th ofApiil, 2008) }. The petitioner, by tiiis petition, <mpugns the validity of the order dated 01.05.2007 (Annexiire P/2) passed by the District Project Coorduiator, S-ajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jagdalpiir, Distt. Bastar (CG),whereby, the petitioner was repatriated to the Education Department on being found several complaints against the petitioner. 2. T^ie facts, m brief, are that the petitioner was sent OH deputation for a period of three years. Tlie petitioner was repatriated baek to the education department oa fhe ground that there were several complaints against the petitioner, on 01.05.2007. 3. Shri Vinay Pandey, leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner suhsnits that the order dated 01.05.2007 bs quashed beeause the order repatriating the se-n/ices of the petilioner from the depirtation is withoirt consent of the petitioner as we!l as without conseat of the employer. Secondly, the petitioner was not givea an opporhinity of hearing. Tlius, the inipugned order is bad ui !aw 011 the ground that the petitioner was repatriated to the parent department before completion of the period of deputation, which cannot be done without siibstantive reasons. 4. Per contra, Shri A.S. KacMiwaha, learaed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 would siibmif that the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department on account of several cotnplaints against him. Several complamts against the petitioner itself indicate that tiie petitioner was not siiitable on the deputed post. 5. Having heard leamed counsel appearhig for the parties, perused the pleadings and docunients appended thereto, it is evident that it is not a case ofsimplicitor repatriation before completion ofthe depirtation period. 6. Hon'lble the Supremc Coii?t Court in the> matter of State of Pussjab assd ofhcrs Vs. iBdcr Singh aad others v.'faile consideriag the deputation and repatriation to tlie parent cadre/departmeat oc expiry ofperiod ofdeputation held as nnder:- "18. The concept of "deputation" is weli understood <n service law and has a recogiized meaning. "Deputation" has a different conaotation in service law and the dictionary meaniag of the word "deputation"' is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service oirtside the cadre or oirtside tfae parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring aa employee to a post outgide his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the emp'oyee has to come back to his parent department to occiipy the same position uniess in the meanwhiie he has eanied promotion m his parent department as per the Recniitmetrt Rules. Wlwther fhe traiisfer is outside fhe nonnai iield ofdeployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post fi-oni whieh the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent ofthe person so depirted and he wouid, therefore, know his rights anu privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputatioa and repatriation is quite settled as we have aiso seen in various judgments which we have referred to above.............^ v' 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case ofUmapati dioudhary Vs. State: of Bihar and anofhei^ has deiined 'deputation' in the followmg terms:- "Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (conmionly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (conmionly referred to as (he parent departinenl or lending aufhority) to another department or cadre or orgaiiization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public iiiterest lo med: the exigencies ofpublic service. s. '(1997) 8 SCC 372 2f!p0914S.C.C. 659 •we '•^i^S^-'' The concept ofdeputatioa is coiisensual and involves a voluntary aecision otthe employerto lendtiie services 01 lus employee and a coH'egpt^nding accept^ncc- o' such service by the borrowing einployer. li also involves uie consent of the empioyee to go on deputatioD or not.' 8. fa the case of aa empioyee if h's s'HtabiIity to the post is iinder question because of misdemeaaor or other conduct or other reasons, the borrowmg department may repatriate the emp'oyee to the parent (feparhnent prematurdy or parent departaieiit may consider to repatriate the deputationist prematiirely. (See Jiidgment dated 04.04.2008, passed in W.P. No. 2298/2008 (Ajay Shanna Vg. State ofC-hhattisgarii & Others), and connected matters). 9. It is clear from the retiim filed by the State Govemment that it is not a siinple repatriatioa ofthe petitioner to the parent department but on account ofnot suitability to the post. Thus, the decision of the goverament is just aad proper aad does not warrant any interference. 10. The petition is acoordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge -¥•-