SITAMBER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 (Annexre P1) vide which respondent no.2 has relieved the services of the petitioner w.e.f 30th October, 2009 before the expiry of the deputation period.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed on 25/6/1979 and was working as a Statistical Assistant under the Office of Leprosy Officer at PL Sharma Hospital Campus, Meerut, U.P. In the year 2008, respondent no.2 advertised for three posts of "Research Investigator" on deputation basis. Petitioner applied for the said post and was appointed for the post of "Research Investigator" on a deputation basis for a period of three years w.e.f 18th June, 2008 vide office order dated 27th June, 2008. The period of deputation was for three years which was to expire on 17th June, 2011 (Annexure P3). It is stated that after joining respondent no.2, petitioner worked with dedication and performed well in the work assigned to him. In October, 2009, to the utter shock and surprise, petitioner was handed over the impugned letter dated 9th October, 2009 which was addressed to his parent department. As per the said letter, it was informed that the services of the petitioner would not be required w.e.f 30 th October, 2009 and he would be relieved on that day. It is alleged that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that neither a show cause notice was issued nor an enquiry was conducted by respondent no.2 while passing the said order.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, it is stated that a deputationist has no legal right to a post and can be repatriated to his parent organisation at any point of time. It is stated that the decision to repatriate the petitioner was taken after reviewing the performance of the petitioner which revealed that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory and the decision to repatriate the petitioner back to his parent organisation was bonafide and taken in public interest. It is contended that the petitioner holds his lien in his parent organisation and would be entitled to join there.