Repatriation Of Deputationist Must Be Based On Valid Reasons, Cannot Be Done As Punishment: MP HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Justice Sanjay Dwivedi quashed the repatriation order of a Water Resources Department engineer from his deputation at the Narmada Valley Development Department, holding that repatriation must be based on valid administrative reasons and not used as a punitive measure. The court found the replacement of the petitioner with an officer facing corruption...
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Justice Sanjay Dwivedi quashed the repatriation order of a Water Resources Department engineer from his deputation at the Narmada Valley Development Department, holding that repatriation must be based on valid administrative reasons and not used as a punitive measure. The court found the replacement of the petitioner with an officer facing corruption charges was arbitrary and prejudicial, given the department's practice of denying promotions to officers with disciplinary records. While acknowledging that deputationists have no inherent right to continue indefinitely, the court emphasized that repatriation decisions must be substantiated by legitimate administrative exigencies.
Background
Sarban Singh, a Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department, was deputed to the Narmada Valley Development Department in 2015. In February 2024, he was transferred to the office of the Chief Engineer, Rani Avantibai Lodhi Sagar Pariyojna, Jabalpur, and given additional charges of vacant posts. The issue arose when on 6th August 2024, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department and his charge was assigned to respondent no. 3, a Superintending Engineer facing corruption charges. He contended that this repatriation was arbitrary and prejudicial, particularly as respondent no. 3 had been penalized under the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for misappropriation of government funds, while the petitioner had diligently held additional responsibilities. Further, the petitioner alleged that his removal was influenced by his strained relations with respondent no. 3, who had personal connections with senior officials in the department.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that his repatriation was unjust, especially given respondent no. 3's tarnished service record. He claimed that no legitimate administrative necessity existed for assigning additional charges to an officer with a history of corruption. Additionally, he cited the department's consistent denial of promotions to officers with a similar disciplinary history as respondent no. 3. The State, represented by Mr. Girish Kekre, countered that the petitioner had completed his deputation tenure and had no inherent right to continue. They submitted that repatriation to the parent department is a routine administrative decision, and the petitioner's challenge had no basis in law. Respondent no. 3 also denied the petitioner's allegations, claiming that the petitioner himself had a history of disciplinary actions, including a penalty for a past offense.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court acknowledged that a deputationist does not possess a right to remain on deputation indefinitely, but highlighted that such repatriations should be based on valid administrative reasons. The court cited the precedents from the Supreme Court and prior High Court rulings which state that repatriation cannot be a mere administrative formality devoid of substance, especially when the deputationist's service record is exemplary. Further, the court pointed out that the petitioner had served on deputation since 2015 and was effectively performing his duties, including holding additional charges. The court scrutinized the reasoning provided for the repatriation, finding no legitimate justification for the abrupt removal, particularly in light of respondent no. 3's involvement in proven charges of corruption. The court also emphasized that additional charges assigned to respondent no. 3, despite his disciplinary history, raised concerns about fairness.
Further, the court rejected the argument that the petitioner's repatriation was due to administrative exigencies. It found that assigning crucial additional responsibilities to respondent no. 3—who was already penalized—was inconsistent with the department's own practice of withholding promotions from employees facing similar charges. The court inferred that the petitioner's removal was driven by extraneous considerations, especially since respondent no. 3 had personal connections with higher officials. Finally, the court held that the petitioner's fundamental rights were violated as the decision was arbitrary and prejudicial. It noted that repatriation must not be treated as a punitive measure, but as a procedural action grounded in administrative necessity. Since no reasonable cause was shown for repatriating the petitioner, the court ruled that his service record and performance were disregarded unfairly.
Citation: W.P. No. 23971 of 2024
Decided on: 18-10-2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rishabh Singh
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Girish Kekre (State), Mr. Vikas Mishra for Respondent No. 3