SBCWP No.9452/2009 1 Of 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9452/2009 Bheru Lal Kumhar v. State of Raj. & ors. Date of order:20th January, 2010 HON'BLE MR JUSICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr A.K. Rajvanshy, for the petitioner The petitioner holding post of Winder in Rajasthan Sahkari Spinning & Ginning Mill Federation Ltd, Gangapur, as alleged, on being declared surplus, was sent on deputation vide order dated 06th November, 2003 to Gram Panchayat, Chandwas and as per Annx.3 dated 05th April, 2008, the respondents took a policy decision in regard to absorption of employees on the post of Gram Sewak, holding qualification of Secondary. However, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and after challan was filed on 25th October, 2007, the respondents took a decision to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department vide order dated 28th August, 2009 and vide its consequential order dated 18th September, SBCWP No.9452/2009 2 Of 3 2009, he was relieved to report to his parent department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner submitted his application in terms of policy decision of the Government dated 05th April, 2008, he should be deemed to be absorbed in the Department of Panchayati Raj and in such circumstances, even if there is some allegation against him on account of a criminal case under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act being registered; he will certainly face trial but there is no justification for the respondents to sent the petitioner back to his parent department under the order impugned dated 28th August, 2009. According to him, he should have been deemed to be absorbed in the Department of Panchayati Raj and could not be repatriated and in these circumstances, order impugned passed by the respondents treating the petitioner on deputation and to repatriate him is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. In the opinion of this Court, the submission is without merit for the reason SBCWP No.9452/2009 3 Of 3 that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Department of Panchayati Raj vide order Annx.1 dated 06th November, 2003 and no order has been placed before this Court for perusal by which this Court can infer that the petitioner was ever absorbed and become member of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and on a mere decision of the Government dated 05th April, 2008, no presumption can be drawn of being absorbed in the Department of Panchayati Raj. In the instant case, on account of a criminal case under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act being registered, if he has been repatriated to his parent department, the order impugned dated 28th August, 2009 can not be said to be arbitrary and even otherwise, being on deputation, he can not claim any right to continue in the department on deputation. This Court finds no substance in the petition and the same is dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J. mma