Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 349 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-14

R.N.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the order dated 15.1.2002 issued under the signature of Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved with immediate effect and his service has been returned to his parent department i.e. Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner was appointed in Bihar State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred to as the Board). He was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer. The Board vide its notification dated 29.8.1998 deputed the services of the petitioner and of one Lal Saheb Singh to the Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar. While they were waiting for posting their services were returned to the Board with immediate effect vide letter dated 6.1.1999. The petitioner and aforesaid Lal Saheb Singh filed C.W.J.C. No. 351/99 challenging the order dated 6.1.1999. The said writ petition was allowed on 10.3.1999 holding that cancellation of deputation at the instance of Minister of the Department for extraneous and irrelevant consideration inspite of their service having been taken on deputation by the department is vitiated in law. However, the deputationst has no right to remain at the place of deputation if the department does not want to keep on the ground that vigilance cases are pending against him. It will be open for the department to request the Board to send the names of other Executive Engineers for deputation and on receipt of the names by the Board the department may select other Executive Engineers for deputation and may return back the services of the petitioner. The Building Construction Department filed L.P.A. No. 420/99 against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.3.1999 in which notice was issued to the respondents on limited question of expunging the comments made by the Court against the concerned Minister from the judgment, which is pending. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6.5.1999 the petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Estimate Division-2, Patna till further order, Annexure-5. Respondent-department vide letter dated 21.4.2001 fixed the term of deputation of the petitioner to three years from the date of his joining. While he was working in the department the Board vide letter dated 8.12.1999 sent the names of five Executive Engineers for selection for deputation in the department. Respondent-department vide letter dated 21.4.2001 fixed the term of deputation of the petitioner to three years from the date of his joining. While he was working in the department the Board vide letter dated 8.12.1999 sent the names of five Executive Engineers for selection for deputation in the department. However, subsequently the Secretary of the Board vide letter dated 16.11.2001 informed the respondents that out of the names sent for selection for deputation Dasrath Singh and Tripit Narain Singh have been promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer and Sri Binod Prasad Singh is working as Joint Secretary and as such expressed inability to depute their services and requested to consider the case of remaining two Electrical Executive Engineers for deputation. Out of two, Sri Jugal Kishore Lai was not selected as serious allegations were pending against him and Sri Dilip Kumar Singh was selected. However, approval of the Chief Minister was not obtained and the order, annexure-1 has been passed relieving the petitioner from the date of issue of order i.e. 15.1.2002 and returning his services to the Board, the present department. 3. In the counter-affidavit stand has been taken that service of the petitioner has been repatriated with immediate effect to the Board on Administrative ground. Pursuant to the order dated 10.3.1999 passed C.W.J.C. No. 351/99 the order, Annexure-5, was issued posting the petitioner in the department. However, option was given to the department to repatriate the service of the petitioner and as such the order, Annexure-1, has been passed which has been impugned in this writ petition. However, in view of the order passed by the Court on 18.1.2002 directing to maintain status quo the petitioner has been allowed to continue on the post of Electrical Executive Engineer in the department. The panel of Executive Engineers received from the Board for selection for deputation in the department was considered by the State Government and from the said panel Dilip Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer has been selected for posting on deputation in the Building Construction Department in place of the petitioner. 4. It is evident from the order, Annexure-1 that service of the petitioner has been returned to the parent department i.e. the Board on administrative ground and he was relieved with immediate effect i.e. 15.1.2002, the date of issue of the order. 4. It is evident from the order, Annexure-1 that service of the petitioner has been returned to the parent department i.e. the Board on administrative ground and he was relieved with immediate effect i.e. 15.1.2002, the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that term of deputation was fixed vide letter dated 21.4.2001 i.e. deputation would be for three years from the date of joining. Three years are going to expire on 6,5.2002. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Shiv Shankar Prasad Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar & others, 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 169 , where it has been held that no employee on deputation has a right to continue on deputation unless and until the terms of deputation so provide. It is well established rule of law that a person on tenure post can be dismissed and removed as the tenure is not a carte balance (sicblanche) for all kinds of contumacies, misdeeds and failures. Similar question was raised in the case of Ram Naresh Trivedi V/s. State of Bihar & others, 1991(1) P.L.J.R. 505. A Division Bench of this Court has overruled such contention on the ground that it is a removal for the post and not from the service. Similarly in the case of Kunal Nanda V/s. Union of India and another, (2000)5 S.C.C. 362 the Apex Court has held that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. In the case of Sri Hira Lal Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 2001(2) B.L.J. 712 : 2001(3) PLJR 271 a Bench of this Court has held that no person has a right to remain on the post on deputation basis. He may at any time be reverted to his parent post/cadre if the order is not likely to cause any loss or prejudice to him. 5. He may at any time be reverted to his parent post/cadre if the order is not likely to cause any loss or prejudice to him. 5. Thus on consideration it is evident that it is well established rule of law that deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation post and he can be repatriated to his parent department at any time during the term of deputation. Moreover, the order, Annexure-1, itself indicates that service of the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department i.e. Board on administrative ground and as such the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, has no substance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner is entitled to continue on deputation post by virtue of the order dated 10.3.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 351/99 till selection of other Executive Engineer for deputation. According to him Dilip Kumar Singh has been selected for deputation in the department but the same has not been approved by the Chief Minister. On insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State produced the file to show that the Chief Minister has also approved selection of Dilip Kumar Singh for deputation in the department. From the file it appears that Dilip Kumar Singh was selected for deputation in the department and the order was also passed pursuant to the order passed in the case to maintain status quo. The file was placed for approval and the same was approved by the Minister incharge and also by the Chief Minister and as such contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. 7. Thus on consideration as discussed above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.