CCS Rules | Borrowing Institute And Not Parent Institute Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Employee On Deputation: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Clearing the air about the authority of a lending institute to conduct an enquiry on allegations pertaining to the period when the employee was on deputation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the authority lies solely with the borrowing department as per Rule 20 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.A single judge bench of Justice Maninder S....
Clearing the air about the authority of a lending institute to conduct an enquiry on allegations pertaining to the period when the employee was on deputation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the authority lies solely with the borrowing department as per Rule 20 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
A single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed, "there is no iota of confusion or doubt that pertaining to the charges when an employee is on deputation, the right to initiate disciplinary action is with the borrowing authority."
The petitioner in this case was a professor from the National Institute of Technical Teachers' Training and Research, Bhopal (NITTTR) who was sent on deputation to Pandit Sundar Lal Sharma Central Institute of Vocational Education (PSSCIVE) in 2006. Just a few days before his repatriation to the parent institute, a preliminary inquiry was lodged against him by the borrowing institute and the report so submitted was kept in abeyance till 2017.
A charge sheet was later issued by NITTTR pursuant to a communication dated 28/03/2017 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, that directed the respondent authorities to consider the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner professor based on the eight charges prima facie proved against him by the fact-finding enquiry of the borrowing institution, PSSCIVE.
The court observed that the petitioner's parent department is NITTTR and the borrowing institution was PSSCIVE, hence NITTTR has no authority to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner based on the fact-finding enquiry carried out by the borrowing institution on allegations that have its origin during the period of deputation.
“…The NITTTR being lending institute had no power to issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Rule 20 of Rules of 1965 as undisputedly, the allegation pertains to the period when the petitioner was on deputation with the PSSCIVE. The order of deputation of the petitioner which has been brought on record reflects that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a fixed period and ultimately the petitioner was to be repatriated back to NITTTR and accordingly he was repatriated back vide an order dated 13/02/2008…”, the court clarified.
Additionally, referring to AP v. N. Radhakishan 1998 (4) SCC 154, the court added that there has occurred an inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings by the Department which has not been sufficiently explained by the respondents. The court also found that prior to the communication dated 28/03/2017 by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, there was no effort by the NITTTR to initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
“A perusal of paragraph 2 of the letter dated 28/03/2017 reveals that there was no binding directions to the NITTTR to initiate the inquiry but NITTTR was extended liberty to consider the institution of disciplinary proceedings.”, the court noted about the letter issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development.
The court accordingly allowed the writ of certiorari preferred by the professor and quashed the charge sheet issued by the parent institution for the lack of competence to issue the same.
“The deputation of the petitioner to PSSCIVE and repatriation back to NITTTR makes it abundantly clear that they are two different departments/institutions. The respondents throughout have supported the order of repatriation dated 13/02/2008 and even challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of repatriation was quashed by the CAT by filing a petition before this Court vide WP No.2363/2009 and this Court set aside the order passed by the CAT and accordingly, affirmed the order of repatriation of the petitioner dated 13/02/2008.”, the court added.
Case Title: Prof R.G Chouksey S/O Late J P Chouksey v. Union Of India Through Secretay Ministry Of Human Resource And Development & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 8994 Of 2017