SHAILESH SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shailesh Singh, an officer of the Indian Police Service belonging to Madhya Pradesh Cadre is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.2806/2009 filed by him in which he challenged the order dated 25.09.2009 prematurely repatriating him to his parent department. Undisputed position is that vide order dated 04.03.2008, the petitioner proceeded on deputation as a Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade at Mumbai. The tenure for which he had to remain on deputation was five years. Vide order dated 25.09.2009 he was repatriated to his parent organization. The order in question, i.e. order dated 25.09.2009 states no reason and alleges no misconduct against the petitioner. It simply states that Shri Shailesh Singh, Zonal Joint Director, Foreign Trade, Mumbai stands repatriated to his parent department.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner as pleaded before the Central Administrative Tribunal that the repatriation is on the basis of certain complaints received against the petitioner and that he has been punished on the basis of a complaint; he has been denied even the basic right to submit a response to the said complaints. As per the petitioner, he improved the working in the office of Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai. He weeded out brokers, touts and commission agents who were flourishing in the office. People ganged against him to lodge a flurry of frivolous complaints and that his premature repatriation is premised on the said unsubstantiated complaints. As per the petitioner, though the order repatriating him is an innocuous order, but by lifting the veil behind the order, truth would be revealed. The petitioner states that he has been stigmatized.

(3.) During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Jyoti Singh, conceded that a person who proceeds on deputation for a fixed tenure does not have any vested right to work in the transferee department for the period stipulated and in the exigency of service the tenure may be curtailed. Counsel conceded that only if it could be shown that there is either mala-fide in law or mala-fide in fact, can such an order be interdicted by the Court.