CW 14614/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14614/09 Ajeet Singh Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 27/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Amit Jindal, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann.3 dt.12th November, 2009 whereby under the order of Commissioner, Excise, he has been repatriated to his parent department. Petitioner joined service in Rajasthan Police as Constable and while working as Assistant Sub- Inspector, District Bundi came on deputation in the Department of Excise vide order dt.17th November, 2007 [Ann.1] – pursuant to which, he joined service on deputation and reported to the Director, Enforcement [Excise] as evident from Ann.2. However, after two years of serving on deputation, Commissioner, Excise vide order dt.12th November, 2009 has repatriated the petitioner to his parent department. Counsel for petitioner submits that Commissioner, Excise has no authority/competence to repatriate back the petitioner under order impugned dt.12th November, 2009. Since his controlling authority is Director, Enforcement, CW 14614/09 [2] who is one of officer appointed by the State Government in terms of Sec.9(1)(1-A) of Rajasthan Excise Act. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner is illegal and same deserves to be set aside. Submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that u/s.9 of the Act, 1950, various officers are appointed by the State Government in the department of Excise including Director, Enforcement which is one of the wing of the Excise for regulating smooth functioning of the department. But, the Commissioner, Excise is the ultimate authority who is accountable and an administrative head of the department. It is not the case where prejudicial action has been taken against the petitioner by the authority subordinate to appointing authority as contemplated u/s.12 of Rajasthan Civil Services [CCA] Rules, 1958. In the instant case, Commissioner, Excise being the administrative head of the department of Excise has taken decision to repatriate the petitioner who is on deputation which otherwise does not confer any right to continue on deputation and if the borrowing department is not CW 14614/09 [3] inclined to continue the petitioner on deputation that in no manner infringe the legal & fundamental rights of the petitioner. R.144 of Rajasthan Service Rules contemplates period of deputation, but a person on deputation cannot claim any right to continue upto the period of deputation as referred to under the Rules and is always with the consent of lending and borrowing department to allow person to continue on deputation. As observed supra, if borrowing department is not inclined to continue on deputation, he can certainly be repatriated and no legal right can be said to be infringed. This court find no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA14614CW09 27-11.doc