( 1 ) " (A) By calling for the records relating to and connected with the letter dated March 12,2002 (correct date is March 12,2003) of the Director, The Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal and malafide. (b) Also declare the action of the Executive Board, the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad in seeking to prematurely repatriate the services of the writ Petitioner to Ministry of Labour, Government of India as illegal and malicious and consequently, refrain them from giving effect to any such decision taken; (c) Direct the Nizams Institute of Medical sciences, Hyderabad to fix up the responsibility for the impugned action in this writ petition and take suitable action against the person found responsible and accountable; (d) Award exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- towards this unwarranted litigation thrust upon the writ petitioner.) the petitioner filed this Writ Petition to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari with the following prayers: (a) By calling for the records relating to and connected with the letter dated March 12,2002 (correct date is March 12,2003) of the Director, The Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal and malafide. (b) Also declare the action of the Executive Board, the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad in seeking to prematurely repatriate the services of the writ Petitioner to Ministry of Labour, Government of India as illegal and malicious and consequently, refrain them from giving effect to any such decision taken; (c) Direct the Nizams Institute of Medical sciences, Hyderabad to fix up the responsibility for the impugned action in this writ petition and take suitable action against the person found responsible and accountable; (d) Award exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- towards this unwarranted litigation thrust upon the writ petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit to pas in the facts and circumstances of the case. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner obtained M. B. B. S. degree in the year 1991 and obtained post-graduate degree of M. B. A. (Hospital Administration) in the year 1997. He worked as Medical Officer in various institutions. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner obtained M. B. B. S. degree in the year 1991 and obtained post-graduate degree of M. B. A. (Hospital Administration) in the year 1997. He worked as Medical Officer in various institutions. Based on his performance at the U. P. S. C. examination conducted in the year 1995, he was appointed as Deputy Director (Medical) under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India at the Regional Labour Institute, Sarvodayanagar, Kanpur (U. P.) ( 3 ) THE Nizams institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Panjagutta, Hyderabad, which has been conferred the status of University under the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1989 )the Act for short), has notified the post of Executive Registrar on 1. 8. 2002. The eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post is that one should be an academician in the field of medical sciences with three years experience in a rank not lower than that of a Professor with the qualification of M. B. B. S. and a post-graduate degree in any specialty. It has been further stated in the said notification that preference will be given to those who possess administrative experience of three years in any university/institution. In response to the said notification, the petitioner submitted his application and the Selection Committee constituted by the Institute entertained the application of the petitioner and he was directed to appear before the Selection committee on 24. 9. 2002. The Selection Committee, comprised of external members as well as the Principal Secretary to Government. Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, apart from the Director/vice-chairman of the Institute and also the Dean of the Institute, made its recommendations and the matter was placed before the Executive Board of the Institute which, approved the selection of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent addressed letters dated 23. 10. 2002, 25. 10. 2002 and 30. 10. 2002 to the petitioner stating that the institute has considered to appoint him as Executive Registrar on the terms and conditions as specified in the notification dated 1. 8. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent addressed letters dated 23. 10. 2002, 25. 10. 2002 and 30. 10. 2002 to the petitioner stating that the institute has considered to appoint him as Executive Registrar on the terms and conditions as specified in the notification dated 1. 8. 2002 and the Institute has proposed to appoint him on deputation basis for a period of two years and his continuance in the post will be subject to review of his work at the end of one year and accordingly he was requested to confirm whether he is willing to join and is for, by what time he can join the duties at the Institute. It is further stated that on receipt of h is reply only it shall be possible for the Institute to issue necessary orders of appointment and his consent in writing was solicited at the earliest. The petitioner has given his consent willing to joint the Institute as Executive Registrar and his request to join before 21. 12. 2002 was accepted by the Director of the Institute vide his letter dated 25. 11. 2002. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Executive Registrar on deputation basis on certain terms and conditions by order dated 30. 10. 2002. In the said order it is stated that the deputation shall be for a period of two years and shall be limited to a maximum period of five years. It is further stated that the institute shall have the right to repatriate the services of the deputed employee at any time before the completion of the period of deputation on administrative grounds. The appointment order also states that the post of Executive Registrar is a full time post and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post shall be as laid down in the Act; the order relieving the petitioner on deputation basis and permitting him to join NIMS as Executive Registrar shall be issued by his parent department i. e. the Regional Labour Institute, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Kanpur and as far as other conditions of service are concerned, the A. P. State Government general conditions of service will be followed. ( 6 ) AS regards the duties of the Executive Registrar are concerned, it is stated that he shall assist the Director in matters of administration, academics and shall look after other duties and responsibilities as assigned to him by the Director from time to time. He shall report to the Director in all matters assigned to him. ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Registrar in NIMS on deputation basis, he was relieved from post of Deputy Director (Medical) by his parent department in the afternoon of 4. 12. 2002 to enable him to join his new assignment of Executive Registrar at NIMS, Hyderabad on deputation basis, as per the rules in force. Accordingly, the petitioner reported before the Director, NIMS at 10. 50 a. m. on 5. 12. 2002 and joined duty as Executive Registrar of NIMS and started functioning as such duly relieving Dr. G. S. N. Raju, who was holding the office of the Executive Registrar till then. ( 8 ) AFTER taking charge of the office of the Executive Registrar, NIMS, the petitioner noticed that the records, registers and files belonging to the office of the Executive Registrar were unrecognized and were not properly maintained. Therefore, he started, in the right earnest, organizing the administrative affairs of the institute in a proper manner and in the process, he stopped Dr. G. S. N. Raju from taking photo copies of the files relating to the institute and brought this matter to the notice of the Director vide his letter dated 9. 12. 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner proceeded on leave from 16. 12. 2002 to 19. 12. 2002 for the purpose of shifting this belongings from Kanpur to Hyderabad. The petitioner was sanctioned leave for the above period by the Director vide letter dated 14. 12. 2002. After shifting his belongings and settling down at Hyderabad, he started attending to the day-to-day needs and necessities of the administration of the institution and started bringing about the necessary reforms on the administrative side. The petitioner states that his efforts in prescribing certain norms in the matter of maintaining files, records, registers etc. 12. 2002. After shifting his belongings and settling down at Hyderabad, he started attending to the day-to-day needs and necessities of the administration of the institution and started bringing about the necessary reforms on the administrative side. The petitioner states that his efforts in prescribing certain norms in the matter of maintaining files, records, registers etc. , in the Institute and carefully monitoring the movements of the concerned were not liked by certain vested interests and the Director of the Institute also entertained the gossip and rumour mongers by paying heed to their unwarranted interference in the matter of administration of the Institute. In this regard, the petitioner made certain allegations against the Director of the Institute by not only impleading him as 3rd respondent as the Director of the Institute, but also impleading him personally as 4th respondent. ( 9 ) THE allegations made against Dr. Kakarla Subba Rao, Director of NIMS are that believing the gossip of one Mr. Krishna Murthy, who worked earlier as Executive Registrar of the Institute, that the petitioner was investigating into the background of facts which lead to the award of Padmashree upon the 4th respondent by the Government of India, called the petitioner to his chamber, where the said Krishnamurthy was also present, and enquired about the statement said to have been made by the petitioner before the office bearers of the para-medical union of the Institute, when they paid a courtesy call on him. Then the petitioner not only denied of making any such statement but also requested the Director to verify the same from the President and Secretary of the para-medical union. The said allegation is said to have been denied by the petitioner in the presence of the 4th respondent, but, no credence can be given to the said averments without there being any material whatsoever in support of the same. ( 10 ) THE second allegation made against the 3rd and 4th respondents is that certain persons were observing his movements at the instance of the 4th respondent right from his arrive at Hyderabad Air Port on 5. 12. 2002 and the 4th respondent called on the petitioner one day and asked him as to what was the purpose behind the petitioner calling on the Honble Chief Minister at his resident. The petitioner denied of any such meeting. 12. 2002 and the 4th respondent called on the petitioner one day and asked him as to what was the purpose behind the petitioner calling on the Honble Chief Minister at his resident. The petitioner denied of any such meeting. ( 11 ) THE third allegation made against the 3rd and 4th respondents is that the Director of the Institute asked him as to whether he was accompanied by one P. Prakash Reddy, Assistant Public Relations Officers of the Institute in his travel from Delhi to Hyderabad on 5. 12. 2002 or not and he wanted the explanation to be given in writing tracing out the entire sequence of events right from the petitioners relieving at his parent department till he landed in NIMS on 5. 12. 2002. Immediately, the petitioner noted down the sequence of events and filed the same before the director on 28. 12. 2002 itself. The petitioner states that till 4. 12. 2002 he was not sure as to whether he would get relieved that by day or not to join the services of NIMS. ( 12 ) THE clearance orders of the parent department are dated 4. 12. 2002 and immediately thereafter he was relieved of his duties around 6. 00 p. m. on that day based upon a fax message received from the Head Office, Bombay and, therefore, he was not very certain as to when he could reach Hyderabad and join NIMS. It was only after his parent department received the fax message from the Head Office at Bombay and he was relieved on 4. 12. 2002, arrangements were made for his travel and confirmation of air tickets from Delhi to Hyderabad had been obtained. There was no time gap between his receiving the relieving orders and his departure at Delhi and, therefore, it is preposterous for any one to presume that Mr. P. Prakash Reddy would have helped the petitioner, any way in his travel. The petitioner also denied that no such person by name Prakash Reddy sat beside him on the flight in his travel and he do not know such person at all till he joined the NIMs. ( 13 ) THE petitioner states that he had done nothing wrong nor failed to protect the interests of the Institute while working there. The petitioner also denied that no such person by name Prakash Reddy sat beside him on the flight in his travel and he do not know such person at all till he joined the NIMs. ( 13 ) THE petitioner states that he had done nothing wrong nor failed to protect the interests of the Institute while working there. On his coming to know that Nizam Pharmacy, a private Medical Shop established in the premises of the Institute, has been receiving a lions share in the procurement of medicines and surgical equipments etc. , running into several crores of rupees for the past several y ears, he was trying to find out a better procurement procedure of medical items of the Institute. There is no hospital manual published indicating the various procedures to be followed by the Institute of such a magnitude. There is no definite procedure adopted in the matter of procurement of various requirements of the Institute and consequently, decisions were taken on tentative basis. When the petitioner started enquiries as to why the Institute has failed to devise an appropriate procurement policy in view of the magnitude of the procurement of the necessities of the Institute running into crores of rupees, there was no satisfactory explanation offered by his colleagues at the office. It is stated that such enquiries conducted by him seems to have caused flutter to someone to know that the petitioner was trying to open the Pandoras box relating to the procurements made by the Institute for the last several years. As the petitioner tried to bring about rational administrative procedures into operation in the Institute and to bring out a hospital manual for laying down rational procedure to curb favoritism and exercise of discretion in the matter of procurement of hospital requirements complaints have been made against him. One of such complaint was by Mr. Shiv Ganesh, who is carrying on the business of running the Nizam Pharmacy and who had close laison with the higher ups in the Medical and Health Department, Government of A. P. , and that of the Institute as well. The other complaint was by Dr. G. S. N. Raju, who was promoted, though not qualified, as Additional Professor. The complaints of both Shiv Ganesh and Dr. G. S. N. Raju were entertained by the Director without any basis whatsoever. It is stated by Mr. The other complaint was by Dr. G. S. N. Raju, who was promoted, though not qualified, as Additional Professor. The complaints of both Shiv Ganesh and Dr. G. S. N. Raju were entertained by the Director without any basis whatsoever. It is stated by Mr. Shiv Ganesh in his complaint dated 9. 1. 2003 that he is running the medical shop in the premises of NIMS since 1992 and there are no complaints against him, but, due to non-co-operative activities going on in the institute, his medical shop, which is made a skape-boat, is blamed. It is further stated that the petitioner called on him in his chambers and asked him about the news item published and as to whether he was responsible for such publication. For that, Mr. Shiv Ganesh denied and stated that he is not responsible for such press publication and stated that there is no truth in any of such publications. For that, Mr. Shiv Ganesh denied and stated that he is not responsible for such press publication and stated that there is no truth in any of such publications. He further stated that this medical shop has been supplying certain medicines free of cost, but, the petitioner, without heeding to him, stated that he came from a big family of criminals and the entire Ranveer Seena is behind him and that he knows all the income-tax people at Delhi and thus he can do anything to anybody. Therefore, Mr. Shiv Ganesh made a request to save him from the petitioner. A copy of the said complaint was also marked to the Inspector of Police. Panjagutta, however, there is no proof as to whether the same has been, in fact, given to the Inspector of Police or not. The petitioner states that the said complaint of Mr. Shiv Ganesh, which has been made without any basis, has also been believed by the Director, NIMS. It is the case of the petitioner that he hails from the respectable family, his wife is also an Opthalmic surgeon and his father is one of the most reputed E. N. T/opthalmic surgeons and, therefore, it is unbelievable on the part of any same element that people with such social and economic background would be even remotely associated with a criminal organization i. e. Ranveer Sena. But, unfortunately, the Director, to whom he has great respect for his professional abilities, believed a rumour without any basis. ( 14 ) IT is stated that based upon the stories carried out against the petitioner, the Director seems to have made up his mind for immediate repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department. Accordingly, the Director has communicated the whole set of allegations to his parent organization as a justification for his pre-determined action to repatriate. Even before the repatriation of the petitioner, the Director issued a fresh employment notification in Rc. No. 8/1/2002/a-5 inviting applications for the posts of Medical Superintendent and Executive Registrar in NIMS to be submitted on or before 30. 1. 2003. A perusal of the said notification discloses that the qualifications and experience for the post of Executive Registrar are : (a) An academician in the field of Medical Sciences with three years experience in a rank not lower than that of Assistant Professor, (b) M. B. B. S. degree with a post-graduate degree in any medical speciality. It is further stated that preference will be given to administrative experience of three years in any university/institution. It is stated that the issuance of a second notification in a span of few months of the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Registrar, though the petitioner is fully qualified and he was appointed on deputation basis initially for a period of two years subject to a maximum limitation of five years, is illegal, malafide, arbitrary and unreasonable. It is stated that addressing of two letters by the Director to the parent department of he petitioner coupled with the second notification issued, would only confirm that the Director, with a malicious intent, made up his mind to relieve him from the post of Executive Registrar of the Institute at the earliest. It is stated that the Director has also apprised the Honble Minister for Health/vice-Chairman of the Institute of all the illegal information, which was gathered, nurtured and written by him, and the Honble Minister also seems to have believed the version of the Director due to the pre-eminent position of the Director. ( 15 ) IT is stated that on 25. 2. ( 15 ) IT is stated that on 25. 2. 2003 the Director suddenly presented himself to the office of the Executive Registrar and immediately demanded him to surrender the keys of all the almirahs of the office of the Executive Registrar where the files, registers and records are kept. The Assistant Medical Superintendent, who accompanied the Director, was equally stunned and surprised by such attitude as is required of a disciplined individual. The petitioner immediately handed over the keys of the almirahs of his office to the Director. The Director also ordered for immediate transfer of the Personal Secretary attached to the office of the Executive Registrar. Thus, by 25. 2. 2003, the Director had completed all the formalities for the repatriation of the petitioner, which is totally uncalled for. It is stated that the Director informed all the members of the Executive Board the required incorrect information about the petitioner and the Executive Board has taken a decision for his repatriation back to his parent department due to bad record of his service. The repatriation order was passed on 12. 3. 2003 itself and the same was served on the petitioner on 13. 3. 2003. The said order dated 12. 3. 2003, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, reads as follows: it has been decided by the Board to terminate the services of Dr. S. S. Waghe, Registrar of NIMS and to relieve him, because the Executive Board felt that his work as Executive Registrar has not been up to the satisfaction of the superiors of the Institute. It is also felt that his activities are detrimental to the interest of the Institute. In view of the above, Dr. S. S. Waghe, Registrar of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences is relieved on the forenoon of 13. 3. 2003 and requested to hand over the charges to Dr. P. Rajagopal, Prof. and Head Dept. , of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, who will be the incharge Executive Registrar until further orders. ( 16 ) IT is stated that the said order is a clear manifestation of the malicious intent of the Director towards the petitioner right from the beginning. 3. 2003 and requested to hand over the charges to Dr. P. Rajagopal, Prof. and Head Dept. , of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, who will be the incharge Executive Registrar until further orders. ( 16 ) IT is stated that the said order is a clear manifestation of the malicious intent of the Director towards the petitioner right from the beginning. The respondents have not even cared to appreciate that the parent department of the petitioner has not been informed of the decision to repatriate him in the absence of which the parent department would not be in a position to give a position to the petitioner as the order appointing the petitioner on deputation basis at NIMS made it clear that he would be there for a period of two years. In view of this unjustified action of the respondents, the petitioner was forced to be without any post. ( 17 ) IT is to be seen that in the resolution passed by the Executive Board selecting the petitioner as Executive Registrar, it was made clear that his appointment is for a period of two years which is extendable up to a maximum period of five years and that his work and performance will be reviewed after a period of one year. The petitioner joined the Institute on 5. 12. 2002 and has availed leave for one week in December, 2002 and again in February, 2003 and out of the total period of thirteen weeks of his tenure, he availed leave for nearly three weeks and during the short tenure of ten weeks the performance of any person is incapable of being assessed with reference to any objective standards that can be devised, but, the impugned order says that his work has not been up to the satisfaction of his superior authorities and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were terminated for extraneous consideration. He was never served with any memo calling upon him to explain in relation to his work and performance of duties and responsibilities as Executive Registrar. The attempts of the petitioner in streamlining the administrative procedure of the hospital and his presence as Executive Registrar of the Institute came to be perceived as a threat to the vested interests, who have been carrying on the tales to the Director. The attempts of the petitioner in streamlining the administrative procedure of the hospital and his presence as Executive Registrar of the Institute came to be perceived as a threat to the vested interests, who have been carrying on the tales to the Director. The Executive Board, which is the competent authority to deal with the post of executive Registrar, without any material whatsoever, came to the conclusion that his work has not been up to the satisfaction of the authorities and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the institution. Such conclusions are reflected in the order of repatriation, which has been passed against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, unsustainable. It is stated that the impugned order terminating the deputation of the petitioner as Executive Registrar of the Institute without consulting his parent department is a stigmatic order passed behind his back, which will be carried out in his personal records maintained by his parent department. It gives rise to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Therefore, the order is punitive in its nature and is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the petitioner has tot great respect for the professional abilities of the 4th respondent but feels sad about him due to his poor public administrative capabilities. The action of the director and the respondents is based on mistrust, lack of confidence, rumours and detrimental interest of the Institute. No action of the petitioner can be characterized as against the interest of the Institute or the public. ( 18 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed counter stating the procedure, manner, powers and functions of the Institutes Governing Council and Executive Board and also the method and manner of appointment of the Director, the powers and duties of the Director and that of the Executive Registrar. The appointment of the Executive Registrar is under Section 9 of the Act. The post of Executive Registrar is a full time post and the Executive Board is the appointing authority on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is stated that the notification, dated 1. 8. 2002 was issued inviting applications to the post of Executive Registrar prescribing the qualifications as M. B. B. S. degree with a post-graduate degree in any speciality. It is stated that speciality means medical speciality but, not a speciality in hospital administration. It is stated that the notification, dated 1. 8. 2002 was issued inviting applications to the post of Executive Registrar prescribing the qualifications as M. B. B. S. degree with a post-graduate degree in any speciality. It is stated that speciality means medical speciality but, not a speciality in hospital administration. The experience prescribed is experience for three years as an academician in the field of medical sciences not lower in rank than that of Professor. But, the petitioner did not possess a Post-graduate degree in any medical speciality. Any way, this not the ground on which the petitioner was sought to be repatriated and, therefore, the respondents cannot project his ground as one of the reasons for his repatriation in the counter. Admittedly, the petitioner has been selected by the Selection Committee and the same was approved by the Executive Board. Specific qualifications and experience are not prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules, but, the Executive Board is having the power to fix the qualifications. In such a situation, when the Executive Board itself has approved the selection of the petitioner as selected by the Selection Committee, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the petitioner was not possessing the post-graduate degree in any medical speciality. Admittedly, the petitioner is a post-graduate in Hospital Administration. ( 19 ) IT is further stated in the counter that the petitioner has been indulging in groupism entertaining the employees placed under suspension and quarrelling with senior faculty members of the Institute. Several faculty members complained to the Director with regard to the manner in which the Executive Registrar is functioning. It is also stated that the association of senior faculty members submitted a representation requesting for appointment of only a senior faculty member of the Institute as Executive Registrar. The Executive Board considered the said representation in its meeting held on 3. 2. 2003. It is further stated that he Executive Board, by its resolution No. 663 dated 3. 2. 2003 resolved that the request for appointing a senior faculty member as Executive Registrar has not been considered and it has been decided to continue the present Executive Registrar till a regular Executive Registrar is appointed and Sri. I. V. Krishna Rao, Finance Secretary and Member of the Executive Board was requested to look for a suitable candidate. 2. 2003 resolved that the request for appointing a senior faculty member as Executive Registrar has not been considered and it has been decided to continue the present Executive Registrar till a regular Executive Registrar is appointed and Sri. I. V. Krishna Rao, Finance Secretary and Member of the Executive Board was requested to look for a suitable candidate. However, in view of the fact that several complaints, oral and written have been received against the petitioner, the matter was again considered by the Executive Board on 12. 3. 2003 in its 33rd meeting and decided to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department with immediate effect and further decided to appoint a senior faculty member of the Institute to be in-charge of the post of Executive Registrar till a regular Executive Registrar is appointed. Consequently, the petitioner was informed vide impugned proceedings dated 12. 3. 2003 about the decision of the Board terminating the deputation of the petitioner and relieving him with immediate effect. It is stated that in his appointment order dated 30. 10. 2002 itself it was categorically stated that the Institute shall have the right to repatriate the deputation of the petitioner at any time before completion of the period of deputation on administrative grounds. As such, the order of repatriation is in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment and is quite legal and valid. ( 20 ) IT is stated in the counter that as per the settled law the deputation is a matter of agreement between two parties, of which one is the parent department, which deputes the officer and the other is the deputation authority, which accepts the deputation of the officer. The terms of deputation are fixed by mutual agreement. It is the right of either of the authorities to repatriate the deputationist or call him back, as the case may be, at their own pleasure. It is also settled law that even when the employee is sent on deputation, the right to take disciplinary action lies with the parent department and in case the deputed employee fails to carry out the assigned duties, the deputationist can be repatriated to the parent department, which shall have the right to take disciplinary action against the employee concerned. It is also settled law that even when the employee is sent on deputation, the right to take disciplinary action lies with the parent department and in case the deputed employee fails to carry out the assigned duties, the deputationist can be repatriated to the parent department, which shall have the right to take disciplinary action against the employee concerned. ( 21 ) IT is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was found not up to the satisfaction of his superior authorities in the Institute and his activities were detrimental to the interests of the Institute and the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot contend that he should be continued on deputation up to two years, more so, when it is categorically stated in the appointment order that the Institute shall have the liberty to repatriate the petitioner at any time before the completion of the period of deputation, on administrative grounds. It is stated that the Director, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 18 (3) of the Act, appointed the petitioner as Executive Registrar pending ratification by the Executive Board, though the authority competent to appoint the Executive Registrar is the Executive Board. In so far as the allegations against the Director, It is stated that the very fact that the Director exercised his powers under Section 18 (3) of the Act itself proves that he has no animosity or ill-will against the petitioner. ( 22 ) IN para 17 of the counter filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the petitioner was received at Delhi by Sri. P. Prakash Reddy, Assistant Public Relations Officer of the Institute, who has been indulging in groupism among the employees and staff of the institute and the petitioner traveled in the same flight with Sri Prakash Reddy from the Delhi to Hyderabad. The hotel in which the petitioner was put up at Hyderabad was also booked by the said Prakash Reddy even prior to his arrival at Hyderabad. The said Prakash Reddy is under suspension pending enquiry into several charges, one among which is the charge that the accompanied the petitioner from Delhi to Hyderabad. While the enquiry against Sri Prakash Reddy is pending, since the petitioner was appointed on deputation, disciplinary action against him is required to be taken by the parent department. The said Prakash Reddy is under suspension pending enquiry into several charges, one among which is the charge that the accompanied the petitioner from Delhi to Hyderabad. While the enquiry against Sri Prakash Reddy is pending, since the petitioner was appointed on deputation, disciplinary action against him is required to be taken by the parent department. Considering the totality of the circumstances and since the continuation of the petitioner as Executive Registrar would be detrimental to the Institute, the petitioners deputation was terminated and he was repatriated to his parent department. ( 23 ) AS regards the allegation that Nizam Pharmacy, a private medical shop located in the premises of the Institute, is receiving a lions share in the procurement of the medical and surgical requirements of the Institute, it is stated that the said shop was established in the year 1993 pursuant to the tenders called and during the said period, the 4th respondent was the not the director Pursuant to the tender process, lease agreement was entered into between Nizam Pharmacy and the Institute for a period of ten years, which is due to expire by 18. 9. 2003 and, therefore, he has no say either in the award of the tender or in prescribing the terms and conditions of the lease. The petitioner picked up quarrel with Nizama Pharmacy, whose Managing partner gave a written complaint that the petitioner had threatened him with dire consequences and this incident was highlighted in the media adversely affecting the reputation of the Institute. ( 24 ) THE allegation that the Director favoured one supplier without any competitive bid is not tenable. It is submitted that while certain important surgical equipments are procured by the institute, medicines are not and all in-patients and out-patients are required to purchase their own medicines from any medical shop of their choice. It is only in cases of emergency that medicines are procured from the Nizam, Pharmacy in view of its proximity and its location within the Institute. It is only in cases of emergency that medicines are procured from the Nizam, Pharmacy in view of its proximity and its location within the Institute. ( 25 ) AS regards the decision to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department, it is submitted that the said decision was taken by the Executive Board comprised of several other members chaired by the Vice-President of the Institute and the allegation that the 4th respondent had apprised the Honble Minister for Health of the illegal information which was gathered, nurtured and retained by him against the petitioner is stated to be false and without any basis. It is further stated that as Director of the Institute, the 4th respondent is empower to transfer employees from one department/section to another on administrative grounds and the transfer of Personal Secretary of the Executive Registrar was on e such transfer and further, to ensure that important files and confidential reports remain in safe custody, the petitioner was asked to return the keys of the almirahs since he was disclosing the confidential information to the suspended employees against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. ( 26 ) COMING to the allegation that the parent department of the petitioner has not been informed of the decision to repatriate the petitioner, it is stated that the Executive Board, in its 33rd meeting held on 12. 3. 2003, unanimously resolved to repatriate the petitioner and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12. 3. 2003 marking a copy to his parent department. Thus, it is stated that the grievance of the petitioner, if any, regarding his future posting is to be agitated against his parent department and not the respondents. ( 27 ) AS regards the contention of the petitioner for the review of his work and performance at the end of one year, it is stated that it is the Selection Committee, while recommending the appointment of the petitioner, which stipulated such a condition, but no such condition was stipulated in the appointment order of the petitioner and, in fact, one of the conditions of appointment is that the institute shall have the right to repatriate the services of the petitioner at any time, before completion of the period of deputation, on administrative grounds. ( 28 ) AS regards to the allegations that the Director acted with malice based upon the incorrect, untenable information and complaints received by him, while denying the said allegations in the counter, serious counter allegations have been made against the petitioner, stating that during the said brief period of the service with the institution, the petitioner indulged in groupism, picking up quarrels with faculty members and disclosing confidential information and files to the employees under suspension and against whom disciplinary action was pending, which activities are detrimental to the proper functioning of the Institute. It is asserted that thought the petitioner acted detrimental to the interests of the Institute, no enquiry could be conducted by the respondents prior to his repatriation as the disciplinary action was pending, which activities are detrimental to the proper functioning of the Institute. It is asserted that though the petitioner acted detrimental to the interests of the Institute, no enquiry could be conducted by the respondents prior to his repatriation as the disciplinary action, if any, is required to be taken by his parent department, in which case, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 29 ) IN making such counter allegations in the counter, absolutely, there is no material whatsoever to make such allegations against the petitioner. Allegations can be made against anybody, but there should be some foundation in making such allegations. The petitioner is also a senior Class-I, Group-A servant of the Government of India and really if there are such allegations, which are serious in nature, the respondents should have taken disciplinary action against him based on the material available against him, but, without taking any action against the petitioner, it is not just and proper to make untenable counter allegations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said counter allegations are untenable and unwarranted. ( 30 ) THE director of the Institute, who was made a party in person as 4th respondent, filed a separate counter explaining about his excellencies and professional abilities and denied all the allegations made against him. It is stated that he has neither any time nor the inclination to entertain the gossip and the rumour-mangers nor any interest in keeping track on the movements of the petitioner and is of least concern for him as to whether or not the petitioner met the Honble chief Minister. It is stated that he has neither any time nor the inclination to entertain the gossip and the rumour-mangers nor any interest in keeping track on the movements of the petitioner and is of least concern for him as to whether or not the petitioner met the Honble chief Minister. It is stated that as the behaviour of the petitioner was found to be detrimental to the interests of the Institute, the Executive Board, which is the competent authority, after considering the issue, resolved to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department. Therefore, no malice can be attributed to him (Director ). The 4th respondent has not stated anything about the two letters said to have been addressed to the parent department of the petitioner and those allegations have not been specifically denied. ( 31 ) I have heard the elaborate arguments advanced by Sri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 4. The petitioner possess M. B. B. S. degree and a post-graduate degree i. e. , M. B. A. in Hospital Administration. The ground on which the petitioner was sought to be repatriated is not on account of his non-fulfilling of the qualifications. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the contentions of the respondents on this count. As regards the representation made by the Association of senior faculty members to appoint one of the senior faculty members as Executive Registrar, it is to be noted that in the said representation dated 27. 1. 2003, a request was made only to consider the possibility of any senior faculty member being appointed as Executive Registrar of the Institute and till a decision is taken on this aspect, they state that it is desirable to continue the present person i. e. , the petitioner in the post of Executive Registrar. Therefore, it cannot be said that senior faculty members sought repatriation of the petitioner. ( 32 ) IT is the contention of the 4th respondent that the petitioner was appointed in exercise of the powers of the Director of the Institute under Section 18 (3) of the Act and, therefore, no animosity or ill-will against the petitioner can be attributed to the 4th respondent. ( 32 ) IT is the contention of the 4th respondent that the petitioner was appointed in exercise of the powers of the Director of the Institute under Section 18 (3) of the Act and, therefore, no animosity or ill-will against the petitioner can be attributed to the 4th respondent. But, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Director had ill-will or animosity against him at the time of his appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent developed such ill-will and animosity only after a period of few weeks of his appointment when the petitioner attempted to reform the administrative procedure of the Institute including the sensitive aspect relating to procurement of medical and surgical requirements of the Institute. Otherwise, there was no occasion for the Director to address letters dated 10. 1. 2003 and 21. 1. 2003 followed by a fax massage dated 7. 2. 2003 to the parent department of the petitioner. The said letters make the position clear as regards the allegations in the counter filed by the respondents about the news item appeared in the Telugu Daily. It is stated that the petitioner cannot read and write Telugu and, therefore, he had no occasion to verify the above aspect, but, however, he solicited the permission of the Director vide his letter dated 27. 1. 2003 to hold a Press Conference in the chambers of the Director for which the Director asked him to submit a written statement for his approval. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a detailed statement to the Director, but, the Director rejected the request of the petitioner stating that it is not necessary to issue any such press statement. Therefore, it is stated, that the petitioner was prevented from binging out the truth to the notice of the press. But, however, the government has taken up the matter with NIMS with reference to a new item which appeared in the last week of December, 2002 and pursuant to the letters of the government, Dr. Indira Venkataratnam, Medical Superintendent in-charge, NIMS has taken up the matter with the State government by way of a letter addressed to the Additional Secretary to the government stating that the allegations made against the present Executive Registrar are totally false without any oral or documentary evidence. Indira Venkataratnam, Medical Superintendent in-charge, NIMS has taken up the matter with the State government by way of a letter addressed to the Additional Secretary to the government stating that the allegations made against the present Executive Registrar are totally false without any oral or documentary evidence. Some internal members, belonging to the faculty and non-faculty cadre, have vested interest in the administration of the hospital and for their self-motives, creating hurdles in the day-to-day administration of NIMS. It is stated by the petitioner that it was the handi-work of Dr. G. S. ( 36 ) THE petitioner was selected to be appointed as the Executive Registrar of the Institute on deputation basis for a period of two years. The petitioner is having teaching experience at Regional Labour Institute, Kanpur (U. P.) for a period of six years and also having research experience in the field of occupational health. The Selection Committee recommended his name only after satisfying with his qualifications and experience. He was given appointment order dated 30. 10. 2002 and he joined NIMS as Executive Registrar on 5. 12. 2002. The appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the Executive board. Even after the approval of the petitioners appointment as Executive Registrar by the Executive Board on 24. 9. 2002, item No. 9 was again there in the agenda of the meeting of the Executive Board dated 30. 10. 2002 for the appointment of in-charge Executive Registrar and in-charge Medical Superintendent till regular persons join, against which Resolution No. 612 has been passed. The Board again met on 5. 11. 2002 and item No. 2 was with regard to ratification of the appointment of Executive Registrar and the same was ratified by resolution No. 619. The 31st meeting of the Executive Board was held on 28. 12. 2002 in which there were several items including the appointment of Professor Balraj as the Enquiry Officer to improve the income of the Institute and to cancel the lease granted in favour of Nizam Pharmacy and to have an own pharmacy for supplying medicines at reasonable cost to the patients. Item No. 26 was relating to ratification of the appointment of Executive Registrar. It is not known why it has come up against for ratification though it was already ratified by the Executive Board in its meeting held on 5. 11. 2002 vide resolution No. 619. Item No. 26 was relating to ratification of the appointment of Executive Registrar. It is not known why it has come up against for ratification though it was already ratified by the Executive Board in its meeting held on 5. 11. 2002 vide resolution No. 619. However, the appointment of the Executive Registrar was again ratified vide its Resolution No. 629 dated 28. 12. 2002. Having ratified, a proposal was made in the proposal column wherein it has been stated that till the Executive Registrar understands the complete system and procedures, on critical issues he needs to take the permission of the Director in each case and that Executive Registrar post need to be advertised revising the terms. ( 37 ) IN the 32nd meeting of the Executive Board held on 3. 2. 2003 at 5. 00 p. m. the proposal as regards the representation of the faculty association for appointment of a senior faculty member as Executive Registrar will continue till the appointment of a regular Executive Registrar. Sri M. V. Krishna Rao, Secretary, Finance and Planning department has been requested to look for suitable candidate. ( 38 ) IN the 33rd meeting of the Executive Board, which met on 12. 3. 2003 the Executive Board modified its earlier resolution No. 663 dated 3. 2. 2003 and decided to repatriate the services of Dr. S. S. Waghe, the petitioner, to his parent department with immediate effect. The Board further decided to appoint a senior faculty member of the Institute to be in-charge Executive Registrar till a regular Executive Registrar is appointed. A perusal of the minutes of the 33rd meeting held on 12. 3. 2003 discloses that there was no item for discussion about the repatriation of the petitioner, but, the Board, unilaterally, not only modified its earlier decision taken on 3. 2. 2003, but also decided to repatriate Dr. S. S. Waghe, the petitioner to his parent department with immediate effect. Pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned order has been issued by the Director on 13. 3. 2003. It is to be seen that the Board has not assigned any reasons for repatriating the petitioner. There is no mention that the repatriation was on administrative grounds. S. S. Waghe, the petitioner to his parent department with immediate effect. Pursuant to the said resolution, the impugned order has been issued by the Director on 13. 3. 2003. It is to be seen that the Board has not assigned any reasons for repatriating the petitioner. There is no mention that the repatriation was on administrative grounds. But, the Director issued the impugned order, which was extracted supra, in which he has not only stated that the Executive Board felt that his work as Executive Registrar has not been up to the satisfaction of the superiors of the Institute, but also his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. These are not the resolutions of the Board. The resolution of the Board was only a simple decision to repatriate the petitioner without assigning any reasons. The Director addressed a letter dated 10. 1. 2003 to the parent department of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has joined NIMS as Executive Registrar on 5. 12. 2002 and as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, the deputation is for a period of two years extendable up to a maximum period of five years. However, it is stated, in the very same appointment order, the NIMS shall have the right to repatriate the petitioner at any time before completion of the period of deputation on administrative grounds and accordingly, the Institute decided to invoke clause 2 of the appointment order dated 30. 10. 2002 and to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department to enable NIMS to appoint the Executive Registrar on regular basis instead of an deputation. Another letter dated 21. 2. 2003 was also addressed to the parent department of the petitioner followed by the fax message dated 7. 2. 2003 in which it is stated that there was no reply from the parent department of the petitioner pursuant to the letters sent for sending him back. It is further stated in the said fax message that the NIMS has already advertised the post of Executive Registrar on regular basis and by 10. 2. 2003 as it will be one month since the above letter was issued, the Institute will be sending back the petitioner and the parent department may see that he is posted somewhere. It is further stated in the said fax message that the NIMS has already advertised the post of Executive Registrar on regular basis and by 10. 2. 2003 as it will be one month since the above letter was issued, the Institute will be sending back the petitioner and the parent department may see that he is posted somewhere. A copy of the note submitted to the Honble Minister for Health is also enclosed to the fax message in which it is stated the reasons for the repatriation of the petitioner are the administrative reasons. It is desirable to extract the note submitted to the Honble Minister for Health, Medical and Family Welfare and Chairman of the Executive Board, NIMS, Hyderabad, which reads as follows: applications were invited for the post of Executive Registrar in the month of July 2002 and interview held on 24. 9. 2002, Dr. S. S. Waghe has been selected on deputation basis and the same has been approved by the Chairman of the Executive Board, NIMS on 25. 10. 2002. ( 39 ) DR. S. S. Waghe has been appointed as Executive Registrar of NIMS vide office order dated 30th October 2002 for a period of 2 years on deputation basis on the following terms and conditions. 1. The deputation period shall be for a period of two years and shall be limited to a maximum period of five years. 2. The Institute shall have the right to repatriate the services of deputed employee at any time before the completion of the period on administrative grounds. 3. The post of Executive Registrar is a full time post, the duties and responsibilities attached to the post shall be as laid down in the NIMS Act. 4. The post carried pay in the scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500. Pay protection shall be given to Dr. Shakthi Samant Waghe duly protecting his pa y being drawn at his parent department. 5. He shall be eligible for such allowances as are approved by the Institute according to the rules of A. P. Government. 6. The performance of Dr. Shakti Samant Waghe shall be subject to review at the end of period of one year. 7. The orders relieving Dr. S. S. Waghe on deputation basis and permitting him to join as Executive Registrar NIMS shall be issued from his parent department i. e. , Regional Labour Institute, Govt. 6. The performance of Dr. Shakti Samant Waghe shall be subject to review at the end of period of one year. 7. The orders relieving Dr. S. S. Waghe on deputation basis and permitting him to join as Executive Registrar NIMS shall be issued from his parent department i. e. , Regional Labour Institute, Govt. Of India, Ministry of Labour, Kanpur (U. P ). Dr. S. S. Waghe is directed to join his duties and report latest by 1. 12. 2002. 8. As far as the other conditions of service are concerned. A. P. Govt. General conditions of services will be followed. ( 40 ) DR. S. S. Waghe joined duty on 5. 12. 2002 as Executive Registrar on deputation. After his joining, it was brought to the notice of Director that Dr. S. S. Waghe was helped by the Asst. Public Relations Officer Sri Prakash Reddy and Sri Chalapathi Reddy, Thirumala Pharmacy, to get his relieving orders from his parent department and sponsored his travel from Delhi to Hyderabad. Based on the above report, Mr. Prakash Reddy, APRO has been kept under suspension. Some of the employees who were suspended on disciplinary grounds have been spending lot of time in the office of Executive Registrar and he gave scope for suspicion and attracting complaints that he is involved in tampering of records to help them out. ( 41 ) THERE were several adverse reports against him in the media and thus spoiled the image of the Institute in the public. (Paper clippings are enclosed for ready reference ). There was a letter from Sri Suravaram Sudhakara Reddy, CPI leader requesting the Honble Health Minister to check the credentials of Dr. Waghes appointment and his involvement in anti-institutional activities. The Executive Board of NIMS met on 27. 12. 2002 has called Dr. Waghe and warned him not to involve in institutional politics, otherwise he will be repatriated back to the parent department. ( 42 ) ON the 9th Jan 2003 there was a criminal case registered on Dr. Waghe in Punjagutta circle police station, by the Managing Partner of Nizams Pharmacy as the Executive Registrar summoned him to meet in E. Rs office through the Deputy Financial Controller. During the course of meeting, Dr. ( 42 ) ON the 9th Jan 2003 there was a criminal case registered on Dr. Waghe in Punjagutta circle police station, by the Managing Partner of Nizams Pharmacy as the Executive Registrar summoned him to meet in E. Rs office through the Deputy Financial Controller. During the course of meeting, Dr. Waghe claimed that he is native of Bihar and he has close links with Ranbir Sena and Sri Ganesh will face dire consequences if he does not co-operative with him. Inspite of the warning by the Executive Board he did not mend his ways and continued his anti-institutional activities. ( 43 ) IN view of the above administrative reasons, we have sent a fax to his parent department to repatriate the services of Dr. S. S. Waghe on 10. 1. 2003. When there was not reply from his department, we have sent a reminder on 21. 1. 2003. Submitted to the Chairman of the Executive Board of NIMS to repatriate back Dr. S. S. Waghe to his parent department i. e. Regional Labour Institute, Kanpur, Govt. of India based on the condition No. 2 of the terms of the appointment of Executive Registrar referred above. The petitioner filed material papers in support of his contention that all the said allegations in the note submitted to the Honble Minister are incorrect, untrue and without any basis, whatsoever. As regards the allegations that he had traveled along with Sri Prakash Reddy, Assistant Public Relations Officer of the Institute, the petitioner denies the same and in fact he has given the particulars of his minute movements right from the time of his relieving at Kanpur and boarding the flight at Delhi till his arrival at Hyderabad and joining the institute on 5. 12. 2002. . In so far as the allegation that the petitioner was permitting the suspended employees to have access to the files, as already stated his predecessor in officer Dr. G. S. N. Raju, by his letter dated 4. 12. 2002 addressed to Mr. R. Manohar Babu, who was under suspension, permitted him to see the records, if he so desires, in the presence of the executive Registrar. Pursuant to the said letter only Manohar babu was allowed to peruse the records. In fact, Dr. G. S. N. Raju was allowed to peruse the records. In fact, Dr. 12. 2002 addressed to Mr. R. Manohar Babu, who was under suspension, permitted him to see the records, if he so desires, in the presence of the executive Registrar. Pursuant to the said letter only Manohar babu was allowed to peruse the records. In fact, Dr. G. S. N. Raju was allowed to peruse the records. In fact, Dr. G. S. N. Raju was the Enquiry Officer and the same is evident from the letter addressed by Dr. G. S. N. Raju to the Executive Registrar stating that he was the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the irregularities committed by Mr. Manohar Babu, legal assistant, who was under suspension. He has requested the Executive Registrar to hand over the connected files listed in the said letter to conduct the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner states that as per the request of the Enquiry Officer only the relevant files alone were handed over to the Enquiry Officer. It is further stated that the petitioner has handed over the files relating to the Cardiology enquiry pursuant to the letter addressed by Dr. G. S. N. Raju, who himself has been appointed as the Presenting Officer relating to the above enquiry. Again a letter dated 24. 2. 2003 has been addressed by Dr. G. S. N. Raju to the Executive Registrar requiring him to produce certain reports stated therein. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr. G. S. N. Raju did not hand over the files relating to Mr. Manohar Babu and he is interfering with the day-to-day administration in connivance with certain illegal elements with an intention to defame the reputation of the petitioner as Executive Registrar. ( 44 ) AS regards the allegation that the petitioner called on the employees, who were under suspension, in his chambers, the petitioner denies the same as baseless and far from truth. In fact, he states that Dr. G. S. N. Raju is alone is responsible for the deterioration of the reputation of the Institute and he has been adopting cheap practices by publishing all wrong news in Telugu Dailies. In this letter dated 24. 1. 2003 the petitioner states that Dr. G. S. N. Raju is responsible for the missing of files relating to Mr. Manohar Babu, Legal Assistant under suspension and also for many financial irregularities during his tenure as Executive Registrar, which resulted in heavy loss to the Institute. In this letter dated 24. 1. 2003 the petitioner states that Dr. G. S. N. Raju is responsible for the missing of files relating to Mr. Manohar Babu, Legal Assistant under suspension and also for many financial irregularities during his tenure as Executive Registrar, which resulted in heavy loss to the Institute. The petitioner states that the refused to recommend the case of Dr. G. S. N. Raju for promotion from the post of Additional Professor to Professor on the ground that he did not complete four years of experience in the feeder category of Additional Processor as per the NIMS Regulations. Therefore, Dr. G. S. N. Raju turned against him and wrote a letter dated 23. 1. 2003 which is without proof or evidence whatsoever, for which disciplinary action may be required to be taken against Dr. G. S. N. Raju. ( 45 ) AS regards the news item published in the Telugu Daily, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 27. 1. 2003 seeking permission to hold a Press Conference in the Chambers of the Director, but the Director did not permit him to do so saying that is unnecessary to hold any such Press conference and thus he was prevented from bringing out the truth. When the petitioner the NIMS, some vested interested elements started canvassing that he has traveled along with the Assistant Public Relations Officer of NIMS Sri Prakash Reddy from Delhi to Hyderabad in the same flight. When questioned in this regard, the petitioner furnished the detailed particulars of his travel right from Kanpur to Hyderabad vide his letter dated 28. 12. 2002 and he further stated that he do not know the said Prakash Reddy, who is said to have traveled along with him in the flight and he saw him for the first time in NIMS. As regards booking of a room by the said Prakash Reddy on the day of his arrival, the petitioner has produced the bills from Hotel Urvasi Inn where he stayed from 5. 12. 2002 to 9. 12. 2002 and accounted for the total amount of Rs. 3,567/- paid by him. He has also furnished the particulars of his paying guest accommodation from 9. 12. 2002 to 15. 12. 2002. Relating to publication of news items dated 4. 12. 2002 and 20. 12. 12. 2002 to 9. 12. 2002 and accounted for the total amount of Rs. 3,567/- paid by him. He has also furnished the particulars of his paying guest accommodation from 9. 12. 2002 to 15. 12. 2002. Relating to publication of news items dated 4. 12. 2002 and 20. 12. 2002 in Andhra Jyothi and Vaartha respectively, it is stated that some of the bad elements had been trying to spoil the name and fame of NIMS among the public by giving false publications and to send out the petitioner from the Institute. ( 46 ) ALONG with the counter filed by the 4th respondent, he has enclosed two complaint letters addressed by Dr. G. Narasimulu dated 6. 1. 2003 and Shiv Ganesh dated 9. 1. 2003. In the letter dated 6. 1. 2003, Dr. Narsimulu stated that the petitioner was enquiring about the various enquiries conducted by different enquiry officers in the Institute and briefed him that all the enquiries done were improper and in violation of the Human Rights Act. It is further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was telling that none of the people in the NIMS including the Director has any knowledge about the rules, protects and about administration and he almost threatened that all the enquiry officers need to face dire consequences over a period of time. In the other letter dated 9. 1. 2003 addressed by Mr. Shiv Ganesh, it is stated that the petitioner called on him and asked the reasons for the press note published in the Telugu Daily for which he stated that the Press people from the beginning are against Nizam Pharmacy and there is no truth in any of the said publications. Mr. Shiv Ganesh also stated in the above letter that he informed the petitioner that Nizam Pharmacy also constructed choultry and every year medicines worth Rs. 5. 00 lakhs are being supplied free of cost. But, it is stated in the said letter, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences saying that he hails from a very big criminal family and the entire Ranveer Sena is behind his back and that he can do anything to anybody. The said Shiv Ganesh expressed a doubt in the above letter as to whether the threat given by the petitioner is addressing him or any other person. The said Shiv Ganesh expressed a doubt in the above letter as to whether the threat given by the petitioner is addressing him or any other person. In the very same letter, he requested the Director to save him from the petitioner. A copy of the said letter is marked to the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta, but, it is not known whether the same is in fact sent to the Inspector of Police as stated supra. ( 47 ) AS already stated, the petitioner denied the entire allegations made against him and submits that he hails from a respectable family and that he is only concerned with the clean administration of NIMS in the interests of public, but, certain vested interests are trying to defame him as he is impartial and not yielding to any pressures. However, unfortunately, the Director, instead of coming to his rescue for cleansing the administration of the Institute, believed the complaints made by such vested interests and started creating a ground for his repatriation without any justification whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner states that the reasons for his repatriation are not administrative grounds and there is no material, whatsoever, for coming to such a conclusion that the work of the petitioner has not been up to the satisfaction of the superior authorities of the Institute and that his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. If the work of the petitioner has not been up to the satisfaction of the superiors, a charge memo should have been issued or any other suitable action should have been taken by the Director. It is stated that absolutely there is no truth in the allegation that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that his activities re in the best interests of the Institute and to rectify the irregularities and illegalities that are going on over a period. In support of this, he states that the audit report on the accounts of NIMS for the year 1999-2000, which pointed out certain irregularities and illegalities, may be perused. ( 48 ) THEREFORE, the respondents are directed to produce the records and accordingly, the relevant records relating to the audit report for the year 1999-2000 and the replies furnished by the Institute have been produced. ( 48 ) THEREFORE, the respondents are directed to produce the records and accordingly, the relevant records relating to the audit report for the year 1999-2000 and the replies furnished by the Institute have been produced. Pare 23 of the audit report relates to purchase of medicines in which it is stated that NIMS has purchased medicines for its use under the rate contract system up to the year 1998-99. After expiry of the rate contract on 31. 03. 1999, it has called for freshy tenders for the year 1999-2000. After receiving tenders, the tenders have been finalized, but the reasons were not explained to the audit party as to why after expiry of the rate contract, the Institute continued to procure various medicines through different suppliers without obtaining any quotations. At this stage, the Director has issued orders vide letter dated 23. 8. 1999 to procure all medicines and disposables from Nizam Pharmacy, which is situated in the premises of the Institute at 15% discount on M. R. P. for hospital use. This is in violation of the established norms and regulations. It is stated that due to the inconsistent method followed in the process of procurement of medicines, excess rates were paid to Nizam Pharmacy causing huge monetary loss to the Institute. It is suggested that a thorough enquiry needs to be instituted by an independent authority to ascertain as to how much money of the Institute is lost in this process and to fix the responsibility for it. ( 49 ) AT item No. 24 relating to purchase of Inj. Botox also, certain irregularities have been pointed out. At item No. 25 dealing with certain irregularities in relation to purchase of medicines from Nizam Pharamacy on receipt of buy and supply indents, it is noticed that medical stores is purchasing medicines from Nizam Pharmacy on receipt of Buy and supply indent if the stock is nil in the medical stores. The Institute is purchasing medicines from Nizam Pharmacy for 15% discount on M. R. P. however, such pricing is not applied uniformly to the medicines purchased through buy and supply indents and in certain cases Nizam Pharmacy is giving 7% to 11% discount only on M. R. P. During the month of December, 1999 alone, the Institute purchased medicines worth Rs. 4,82,442/- from Nizam Pharmacy and the Institute is spending an amount of Rs. 42,00,000/-lakhs per annum. 4,82,442/- from Nizam Pharmacy and the Institute is spending an amount of Rs. 42,00,000/-lakhs per annum. The institute paying excess price to Nizam Pharmacy for the purchase of medicines through buy and supply indents amounting to lakhs of rupees per annum. ( 50 ) TO the above objections of the audit, replies have been submitted by the Institute based upon which the proposed action is said to have been dropped. I am not inclined to comment on the action of the Institute in dropping the proposed action as the same is not the subject matter of this Writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the so-called irregularities and the replies said to have been submitted by the Institute. ( 51 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner states that they are all some of the factors which have to be taken into consideration which lead for the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department while adjudging the issue in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the attempt on the part of the petitioner to reform the administrative procedure of the Institute including the most import aspect of procurement of medicines and to organize the administrative procedure of the Institute as there was no Hospital Manual prepared or existing so far, the Director of the Institute seems to have developed reservations about the purpose of his bringing about the reforms and started working against him for his repatriation. The Director, instead of supporting him and taking his services, believed the complaints made by Mr. Shiv Ganesh and Dr. G. S. N. Raju former Executive Registrar of the Institute and also other interested persons. He states that the action taken by the respondents is malicious, illegal and unsustainable. ( 52 ) THE Apex Court in the case of State of A. P. and others v Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 at para 12 held as follows: the legal meaning of malice is ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action. This is sometimes described as malice in fact, Legal malice, or malice in law means something done without lawful excuse. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. This is sometimes described as malice in fact, Legal malice, or malice in law means something done without lawful excuse. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others ( 53 ) IT is stated that the Director has developed malice against the petitioner which is evident from the way in which he has put up a note to the Vice-chairman i. e. the Honble Minister for Health, Medical and Family Welfare and marking a copy of the same to his parent department along with the fax message and also the way in which he has entertained the complaints received from Dr. G. S. N. Raju, former Executive registrar of the Institute and Mr. Shiv Ganesh, partner of Nizam Pharmacy. Had there been any truth in any of the said allegations, in all fairness, he should have taken legal action against ht petitioner, but, he has addressed letters behind his back for making order of repatriation without giving any notice to him, more so, when the repatriation order is stigmatic in nature and against the principles of natural justice. ( 54 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that without the consent of the deputing authority i. e. , the parent department of the petitioner, the respondents could not have repatriated him relieving him of his duties at NIMS and the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it is veiled punishment in view of the judgment of this Court in Syed Riazuddin Husain v. K. Ramulu and others (1997) 1 LLJ 590 wherein it has been held the sum and substance as follows: it is common law that a master has the choice of his own employee and his option in the matter cannot be fettered unless there is a statutory or contractual control over it. So far as deputation is concerned, it is usually a matter of agreement between the two authorities of which one is the parent employer who deputes the Officer and the other is the deputation authority who accepts the deputation of the Officer. The terms of deputation are fixed either by mutual Rules or by agreement. So far as deputation is concerned, it is usually a matter of agreement between the two authorities of which one is the parent employer who deputes the Officer and the other is the deputation authority who accepts the deputation of the Officer. The terms of deputation are fixed either by mutual Rules or by agreement. The period of deputation is usually fixed under the Rules or the agreement and where it is so fixed, the deputation is to normally last till the lapse of the period. But where there is no fixed period, it is the right of either of the authorities either to repatriate the deputationist or call him back as the case may be, at their own pleasure. Where no specified period of deputation is fixed, the deputation authority has the right to send back and Officer to his parent department whenever it desires. This only conforms to the common law concept of an employer being entitled to choose his employee. Deputation of an Officer from one authority to the other is a matter of mutual agreement between the two authorities to one of whom the request is made for the deputation and he complies with the request agreeing to send an Officer on deputation. It is hence felt fit and proper that when an Officer is brought on deputation, the parent authority should be made aware of the decision taken to send him back, at least as a measure of good relationship and courtesy. It can be visualized if an Officer is suddenly relieved and is made to knock the door of the parent department abruptly for giving him a posting, the parent department may find itself in a state of unpreparedness to accommodate him since depending upon the deputation it might have entered into some temporary arrangements. Even though no notice of repatriation may be necessary to be given to the Officer concerned as he has no right to the post on deputation, yet a notice of the same can conceivably be given to the deputing authority to arrange its own affairs to take back the Officer. ( 55 ) A question arose before the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Sadhansu Sekhar Misra and others AIR 1968 SC 647 , where the question was the repatriation of certain judicial Officers who had been placed at the disposal of the Government for administrative duties. ( 55 ) A question arose before the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Sadhansu Sekhar Misra and others AIR 1968 SC 647 , where the question was the repatriation of certain judicial Officers who had been placed at the disposal of the Government for administrative duties. The Officers having been unilaterally reverted by the High Court to its control which did not stop there but also posted some other Officers in the government in the posts which fell vacant due to the repatriation, the correctness of the order was mentioned before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held while sparing the service of an Officer it is open to the authorities to fix the period during which the deputation would last and at the end of the period the deputation authority is bound to allow the employee to come back to his parent department unless the deputing authority agrees for the extension of the deputation. If there is no such agreement, it is open to the Government to send him back to his parent department at any time it pleases. But in the instant case, a minimum period of two years is fixed in the order itself of the appointment of the petition as Executive Registrar. Therefore, it is not open for the parent department of the petitioner to call him back and similarly, it is not open for the respondents to send him back even before the period of two years is completed, more so ever, there being without any review of his work an d performance at the end of one year on the so called grounds of administrative reasons. ( 56 ) IN Bhupinder Pal Singh v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors 2003 (2) Supreme 493 the Supreme court held that the order of removal of the appellant from the position of Check Pilot without observing the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained inasmuch as the same is passed without giving any opportunity either during the enquiry made for the first time or in the second enquiry. However, in the instant case, there is no enquiry, whatsoever, and without conducting any enquiry or affording any opportunity the petitioner has been repatriated by the impugned order tainting him as his work is not up to the satisfaction of the superiors and his activities are detrimental to the interest of the Institute. However, in the instant case, there is no enquiry, whatsoever, and without conducting any enquiry or affording any opportunity the petitioner has been repatriated by the impugned order tainting him as his work is not up to the satisfaction of the superiors and his activities are detrimental to the interest of the Institute. ( 57 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate General contended that the deputationist has no right to question the order of repatriation and relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Retail B. Soni and others v State of Gujarat and others AIR 1990 SC 1132 wherein the Patwaris in Panchayat service were sent on deputation to the higher cadre as Circle Inspector in the State services. In the said case the Supreme Court held that government servant on deputation can be reverted to his present cadre at any time and such servant do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. ( 58 ) THE above case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand inasmuch as it is not the case of the petitioner that he should be absorbed in the deputation post. But, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been selected and appointed in the post of Executive Registrar on deputation basis for a minimum initial period of two years extendable up to a maximum period of five years and, therefore, the respondents cannot repatriate him to his parent department contrary to the said agreement. Further, it is also not the case of revision as was the case in above cited decision. As per the appointment order dated 30. 10. 2002, the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Registrar is for a period of two years on deputation basis subject to the conditions (a) deputation period shall be for a period of two years and shall be limited to a maximum period of two years and shall be limited to a maximum period of five years. (b) The institute shall have the right to repatriate the services to the deputed employee at any time before completion of the period on administrative grounds. (c) The post of Executive Registrar is a full time post and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post will be as laid down in the NIMS Act. (b) The institute shall have the right to repatriate the services to the deputed employee at any time before completion of the period on administrative grounds. (c) The post of Executive Registrar is a full time post and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post will be as laid down in the NIMS Act. (d) ---- (e) ---- (f) The performance of the petitioner shall be subject to review at the end of period of one year. (g) As far as the other conditions of service are concerned, A. P. Government general conditions of service will be followed. The Executive Registrar shall assist the Director in the matter of administration, academics and shall look after such other duties and responsibilities as assigned to him by the director from time to time. He shall report to the Director in all matters assigned to him. ( 59 ) IT is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not assisted the Director in any matter of administration, academics or not looked after any such duties as assigned to him by the Director. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not reported to the Director on any matter against to him. No doubt, clause 2 of the appointment order stipulates that the Institute shall have the right to repatriate the services of the deputed employee at any time before the completion of the period on administrative grounds. But, it is not the case of the respondents either in the resolution of the Board or in the impugned order that the repatriation is effected on administrative grounds. The impugned order says that the petitioner is repatriated as he has not been up to the satisfaction of the superiors of the Institute and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. There is no material, whatsoever, to come to such a conclusion. Further, if his work was not up to the satisfaction of the superiors and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute, it is a matter of serious nature which calls upon for taking necessary action against him under the service rules. But, there was no such action taken or was there any material whatsoever to come to such a conclusion, which will have a bearing on the character service record of the petitioner. But, there was no such action taken or was there any material whatsoever to come to such a conclusion, which will have a bearing on the character service record of the petitioner. When a fixed period of two years has been prescribed while appointing the petitioner on deputation basis, even before the completion of the said period, without assessing or reviewing his work and performance, it cannot be said that his work is not up to the satisfaction of the superior authorities of the Institute and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Institute. ( 60 ) IN view of the decisions of this Court and the apex Court (supra), it is not open for the respondents to send him back abruptly by casting a stigma on his conduct and character. Admittedly, no regular Executive Registrar has been appointed, but only in-charge arrangements were made. ( 61 ) IN the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. I am also of the opinion that none of the actions of the petitioner are in the detrimental interest of the respondent-Institute and there is nothing to show on record that his work was not satisfactory. I am of the opinion that in the interests of the Institute and also of the public, such a repatriation order cannot be sustained. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs setting aside the impugned order. The petitioner is deemed to be in the service of the respondent-Institute as Executive Registrar and the may be permitted to function as such.