Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J. — The matter is notified on Board along with Civil Application No. 3747 of 2013, which is filed by Union of India for vacating the interim relief granted by this Court on 25.3.2013. Learned ASG Mr. Champaneri submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. Learned ASG invited attention of the Court to Para.5 of the affidavit-in-reply filed to the main petition by one Shri Hari Om Gandhi, Zonal Director, Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit. Para.5 reads as under : “It is further submitted that the applicant had tried to mislead the Hon’ble Tribunal by suppressing the true facts to support his contention of ‘unblemished service record’ and to substantiate his claim to justify his suitability for absorption. In O.A. No. 259/2011, the applicant has made the following statement- ‘6.12 ...... when the applicant has satisfactory service and record with the Respondent No. 1 and 2. 7C. The action of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 by not following the Recruitment Rules after obtaining the NOC and changing their view is unjust and in violation of principles of estoppels. In absence of any specific reason when the service record is crystal clear an d satisfactory there is no reason to relieve the applicant by treating as deputationist by not giving the benefit of 28% quota in recruitment.’ These two important aspects and the information in relation thereto could not be controverted by the respondents in the absence of full service record of the applicant while filing the reply to O.A. 259/2011. However, during the course of the hearing of the Special Civil Application No. 18766 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 28.12.2011, an oral observation was made by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat to the effect that one adverse remark would have sufficed for rejecting absorption claim. Therefore, on the basis of entries made in the service book of the applicant herein, the respondents could gather about the conduct of the applicant herein while discharging the duties in his parent department and, therefore, adverse notings made in the service book could be noticed. In this connection concerned records were called from Central Industrial Security Force by NCB Hqrs on 29.12.2011 and were received on 30.12.2011. A copy of the summary of misconduct committed by the applicant is annexed hereto & marked as Annexure-R(I). In this connection concerned records were called from Central Industrial Security Force by NCB Hqrs on 29.12.2011 and were received on 30.12.2011. A copy of the summary of misconduct committed by the applicant is annexed hereto & marked as Annexure-R(I). It is submitted that the aforesaid materials reflecting the conduct of the applicant in discharging his duties clearly show that the applicant is not only unsuitable but also unfit for permanent absorption for the post of Intelligence Officer on the grounds such as doubtful integrity, gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty and habitual absence from duty. He has also committed several misconducts which are of criminal in nature, such as attempt to molest a lady, tampering the telephone to make private calls etc. The aforesaid facts are clearly shown in the permanent C.R. dossiers and Personal File No. PSL 1277. Hence claim of the applicant for permanent absorption is based on false and misleading facts and he had not come before this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands. He is suppressing all the material facts from this Hon’ble Tribunal, which may result into miscarriage of justice. Hence the claim of the petitioner is controverted.” (emphasis supplied) 2. The Court is of the opinion that this is a serious matter and therefore, the Court asked the learned advocate for the petitioner to address the Court afresh and convince the Court as to why the order dated 25.3.2013 be not recalled. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued the matter at length. The petition is heard in detail and after full-fledged hearing, this judgment and order is passed. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 8.3.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 270 of 2012 with Misc. Application No. 329 of 2012. 3.1 The Central Administrative Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. having found the same to be devoid of merits and held that Misc. Application No. 329 of 2012 will not survive and the same was disposed of. 4. There has to be a limit in the matters of imposing oneself upon a department to which a person was sent on deputation. The petitioner is a person, who was sent on deputation to NCB (Narcotic Control Bureau) from his parent department i.e. CISF (Central Industrial Security Force). The petitioner was initially sent on deputation for 3 years. 4. There has to be a limit in the matters of imposing oneself upon a department to which a person was sent on deputation. The petitioner is a person, who was sent on deputation to NCB (Narcotic Control Bureau) from his parent department i.e. CISF (Central Industrial Security Force). The petitioner was initially sent on deputation for 3 years. He was then granted extension for a period of 1 year and subsequently, he was granted another one year’s extension. 4.1 The petitioner having come to know that there is a Rule which provides for ‘recruitment’ by way of absorption of deputationist, made an application to the department and the department for the reasons best known to it, processed that application and sought ‘No Objection’ from the parent department of the petitioner. The petitioner is making this to be the plank for basing his claim for permanent absorption in the department i.e. NCB. Merely because there is a Rule for recruit to the extent of 28% from amongst deputationist, it does not confer right on the petitioner to apply suo-motu for absorption. Assuming for the sake of argument that he could have applied, the department could not have processed his application. If for the reasons, not known, the department processes his application and seeks NOC from his present department, it does not create a right in favour of petitioner which can be enforced by approaching the Court. 4.2 The misrepresentation of the facts becomes significant because it is on record that the Tribunal while deciding earlier application being O.A. No. 259 of 2011, had observed in Para.12 as under : “12. We may note another important feature of present case. It is not case of respondents that applicant was either unfit for absorption or there was certain deficiencies in his conduct. Rather, on the other hand, specific contention raised by him vide ground 7(C) that his service record is crystal clear and satisfactory, has not been refuted either in general or in specific. On other hand, repeated justification given by the respondent is that proposal to appoint Intelligence Officer on permanent basis through UPSC would take considerable time and, therefore, department “decided not to absorb applicant” would disclose that applicant’s request for absorption has not been even initiated, what to talk of consideration justly and fairly. . . . . . . On other hand, repeated justification given by the respondent is that proposal to appoint Intelligence Officer on permanent basis through UPSC would take considerable time and, therefore, department “decided not to absorb applicant” would disclose that applicant’s request for absorption has not been even initiated, what to talk of consideration justly and fairly. . . . . . . .” (emphasis supplied) 4.3 The aforesaid observations of the Tribunal are sufficient to show that the Tribunal was under impression that here is a petitioner, who is having a crystal clear service record. During the course of arguments, it was put to learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner whether service record of the petitioner can be said to be crystal clear, in light of the instances which are placed at Annexure-R-I, a copy of which is found at Page-253 which are nine in number. For the misconduct listed at Item No. 3 of that list, the punishment awarded is “reduction to lower time scale pay from Rs. 1520/- to Rs. 1400/- for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect”. Similarly, for misconduct listed at Item No.4, punishment awarded is “Censure to withholding of one future increment for a period of two 2 years without cumulative effect”. Similarly, for the misconducts listed at Item No. 5, punishment imposed is “7 day pay fine”. The misconduct listed at Item No. 6 is of serious nature. It reads as under : “Gross act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty on the part of No. 882130066 SI/Exe. S.R. Singh in that he visited out of bound area without any permission from the competent authority and misbehaved as well as tried to molestation with Ms. Sima Chauhan, sister of Shri D.P.S. Chauhan”, 4.4 For this misconduct, petitioner was punished with 7 day pay fine. So is the case with misconduct listed at Item No. 7, for which “7 day pay fine” was imposed. Remaining items are, where “censure” is awarded. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the respondents have not brought these facts before the Central Administrative Tribunal or before this Court earlier. There is no estoppel nor there can be an argument to that effect against suppression of material fact, except the case of the petitioner is that these facts are non existent, more particularly when misconduct is of such nature. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. There is no estoppel nor there can be an argument to that effect against suppression of material fact, except the case of the petitioner is that these facts are non existent, more particularly when misconduct is of such nature. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that his averments in the Original Application about his service record being ‘crystal clear’ be read only qua his service period with NCB and it should not be read for his entire service period. 6. This Court is of the opinion that there could not be any more serious misrepresentation of facts therefore, this Court is of the opinion that only on this short ground, this petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-, the deposit of which shall be condition precedent for filing any further proceedings in this matter. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of the judgment and order passed in main Special Civil Application, this Civil Application does not survive. Disposed of accordingly.