Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 169 (PAT)

Lal Saheb Singh v. State of Bihar

1999-03-10

NAGENDRA RAI

body1999
JUDGMENT NAGENDRA RAI, J. :- Both the petitioners have filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 4-1-99 passed by the Minister Incharge of Building Construction and Housing Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) by which Notification 5560 (B) dated 31-12-98 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application has been kept in abeyance wherein petitioner No.1 Lal Saheb Singh was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Estimating Division No. 1 Building Construction Department, Patna as well as the order dated 6-1-99 issued by the respondent No.2 Joint Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna by which the service of the petitioner No.2 Ajay Kumar Prasad has been returned to his parent department, Bihar State Electricity Board in order to allow the respondent No.6 Harihar Pd. Singh to continue in spite of his service being returned to the parent department (Board) long back. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that these two petitioners, are employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and are holding the substantive post of Electrical Executive Engineer. The respondent No.6 Harihar pd. Singh and Ramchandra Choudhary were on deputation in the department as Electrical Executive Engineer. By notification dated 25-6-98, the Board recalled the service of the aforesaid two persons vide Annexure-8 and thereafter the aforesaid two persons reported their joining to the Board. Ramchandra Choudhary was posted by the Board as Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and Revenue), Electrical Circle, Motihari vide notification dated 28-8-98. The respondent No.6 was also posted by the notification of the same date as Electrical Executive Engineer (Scheme II) Bihar State Electricity Board. The Building Construction Department called for the names of Electrical Executive Engineers from the Board vide letter dated 28-7-98 for deputation and the Board by its letter dated 18-8-98 sent the name of both the petitioners along with their annual confidential report of the last five years for their selection on deputation in the department. The department selected both the petitioners for deputation and accordingly requested the Board for making available their services to the department immediately on deputation vide letter dated 26-8-98 vide Annexure-3 and thereafter the Board by its notification dated 29-8-98 placed the services of the petitioners at the disposal of the department. The petitioner No.1 joined on 26-9-98 and petitioner No.2 joined on 31-8-98 in the department. The petitioner No.1 joined on 26-9-98 and petitioner No.2 joined on 31-8-98 in the department. The establishment committee of the department held its meeting on 26-8-98 and recommended that the petitioner No. 1 should be posted as Electrical Executive Engineer in Electrical Estimating Division No.1 and petitioner No. 2 should be posted in Electrical Estimating Division No.2. Again the said decision was reiterated by the establishment committee in the next meeting and thereafter a notification dated 31-12-98 (Annexure-5) was issued by which petitioner No.1 was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Estimating Division No.2 and in pursuance of which he joined on 1-1-99. So far petitioner No.2 is concerned an order was passed and his service was returned back to his parent department vide order dated 6-1-99 (Annexure-1). Later on deputation of both the petitioners in the department was cancelled on 5.1.99. It further appears that the aforesaid Ramchandra Chaudhary whose services were recalled by the Board challenged the order of the Board dated 25-6-98 by filing a writ application being CWJC. No. 7208/98 and the matter was finally disposed of by this Court on 23-9-98 (Annexure 11). This Court upheld the order dated 25-6-98 by which services of aforesaid Ramchandra Chaudhary was recalled and further ordered that if aforesaid Ramchandra Chaudhary will join the post in the Board by 28-9-98 the order of suspension passed by the Board shall stand vacated. It also appears that respondent No.6 whose services were also recalled by the Board in June, 1998 was allowed to continue in the department and was not relieved. 3. According to the petitioners the order of cancelling their deputation was made by the Minister Incharge only with a view to help respondent No.6 who was not relieved inspite of recall of his service by the Board. It is also asserted on their behalf that the Minister concerned has acted arbitrarily and in malafide manner in cancelling their deputation. 4. The State has filed counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits wherein the stand of the State is that the department requested the Board to send the panel of the Executive Engineers for deputation after recall of the service of respondent No.6 and Ramchandra Chaudhary. The Board sent the names including the name of the petitioners. The Board was asked to send the Vigilance clearance report but the same was not provided by the Board. The Board sent the names including the name of the petitioners. The Board was asked to send the Vigilance clearance report but the same was not provided by the Board. In the meantime, the decision was taken and their deputation was accepted and they were posted. Latter on the Board sent the Vigilance report and it was found that the Vigilance cases were pending against them and accordingly their deputation has been cancelled. It is further stated that so far respondent No.6 is concerned in pursuance of an interim direction given by this Court he has been relieved and he has joined the Board. Respondent No.6 has also filed the counter-affidavit wherein he has stated that now he has no concern with the department and he has joined in the Board. 5. The petitioners have challenged the cancellation of their deputation on the ground of arbitrariness and mala fide at the instance of the Minister of the department concerned. It is asserted on their behalf that their services were placed at the disposal of the department and the department considered their A.C.R. and thereafter selected them for deputation. Later on with a view to help the respondent No.6 who was not relieved by the order of the Minister the impugned order of cancellation has been passed. 6. The stand of the State on the other hand is that the petitioners being the deputationists have no right to remain at the place of deputation and the department having found that the vigilance cases are pending against them returned their service to the parent department and as such no case for interference is made out. 7. Admitted facts are that the petitioners are the employees of the Board and they were sent on deputation on the request of the department. The matter was placed before the Establishment Committee along with their A.C.R. and they were selected and thereafter they were asked to join and they joined in the department. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No. 6 though he was recalled by the Board in June, 1998 but he managed to continue in the department. 8. The original files which have been produced by the respondents show that only to accommodate the respondent No.6 the matter of deputation of the petitioners was reopened and different orders were passed by the Minister Incharge on different times. 8. The original files which have been produced by the respondents show that only to accommodate the respondent No.6 the matter of deputation of the petitioners was reopened and different orders were passed by the Minister Incharge on different times. Respondent No.6 was relieved from the department in pursuance of the interim direction issued by this Court on 13-1-99 wherein this Court directed the Secretary of the department to take steps to relieve respondents No. 6 forthwith in any case not later on 18-1-99. This Court further ordered that his continuance in the department will construe as an act of disobedience on the part of the Secretary of the department and thereafter respondent No.6 was relieved. 9. All Governmental actions by the Minister or individual officer should be done for the public welfare and in the national interest. The action of the Minister should be honest and incorruptible. He should not act in a way that gives an impression that public money and public time is vested to help some one. 10. It is well settled that a deputationist has no right to continue at the place of his deputation and his service can be returned back or repatriated to his parent department where he has been deputed. But if the order of repatriation is the result of misuse of power, in other words, if the action of the authorities is actuated by improper consideration or is result of arbitrariness then the order becomes vulnerable and in such a case the Court can interfere with the order of repatriation for the simple reason that the authorities have not acted in just and fair manner while passing the impugned order and thus his action becomes arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the present case the department selected the petitioners for deputation after taking into consideration of their A.C.R. Even the establishment committee recommended their case for posting but rater on their deputation has been cancelled on the grounds mentioned in the counter-affidavit. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the cancellation of deputation of the petitioners at the instance of the Minister of the department for extraneous and for irrelevant consideration inspite of their service having been taken on deputation by the department is vitiated in law. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the cancellation of deputation of the petitioners at the instance of the Minister of the department for extraneous and for irrelevant consideration inspite of their service having been taken on deputation by the department is vitiated in law. However, as stated above, a deputationist has no right to remain at the place of deputation if the department does not want to keep on the ground that the vigilance cases are pending against him. It will be open for the department to request the Board to send the name of other Executive Engineers for deputation and on receipt of the names by the Board the department may select the other Executive Engineers for deputation and may return back the services of the petitioners. 13. With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ application stands allowed. Writ Application Allowed.