SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was sent on deputation to the National Crime Research Bureau (NCRB) for a period of three years on 24.4.2006. By order dated 19.3.2007, he was repatriated to his parent department. Being dissatisfied by the said order of repatriation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short 'the tribunal'), in O.A. No. 487/2007 wherein the tribunal, vide order dated 1.5.2007, directed to take the petitioner back in service on deputation with a further direction that he should be allowed to continue up to his full tenure. The said order was challenged by the employer but without any success and, accordingly, the petitioner continued to work in NCRB on deputation upto 23.4.2009. Thereafter, he submitted an application for absorption in NCRB on the ground of illness of his parents and his wife was living with him in Delhi. The NCRB entered into correspondence on 3.9.2009 with the CISF, the parent department of the petitioner, seeking its no objection to the absorption of the petitioner in NCRB. Eventually, the parent department gave its no objection on 17.11.2009 to the proposal of NCRB. Thereafter, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened to consider the suitability of the petitioner for absorption under NCRB, the second respondent herein. The DPC did not find the petitioner suitable for absorption and, accordingly, made the recommendation which was accepted by the Director General of NCRB and ultimately, an order was passed on 21.4.2010 repatriating him to his parent department. The case of the petitioner for absorption was rejected by the DPC on the ground that the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System Project (CCTNS Project) in which the petitioner was working was going to be integrated with the Automated Fingerprint System and it would be appropriate to induct constables who had experience of fingerprint work for better professional management of the NCRB.

(2.) Being dissatisfied with the non-absorption, the petitioner approached the tribunal vide O.A. No.1313/2010 which was decided on 16.11.2010, wherein the tribunal has directed the respondents to re-consider the repatriation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal, the second respondent-NCRB considered the case of the petitioner and passed an order to the effect that in view of the emerging future requirements in the context of Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) Project, the CFPB would require constables having experience of working in the State Finger Print Bureaus in the field of fingerprint or constables having experience of working in Finger Print Unit/Branch at the District level in the field of fingerprint and, hence, the petitioner could not be accommodated against the post of constable in CFPB and could not be permanently absorbed.

(3.) Grieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the tribunal in OA No. 4215/2010 contending, inter alia, that the respondent No.2 had misconstrued the direction of the tribunal in the earlier order dated 16.11.2010 and, hence, the order passed by the NCRB was absolutely flawed. It was urged that the nature of work had not been changed and the petitioner, who was working in CCTNS Project, had performed extremely well which is reflectible from his recommendation for honorarium and, hence, there was no justification not to absorb him and the repatriation was founded on extraneous grounds. The said stand was opposed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the tribunal had issued a limited direction to the respondents in O.A. No.1313/2010 and regard being had to the directions given by the tribunal, the case of the petitioner was considered by the NCRB which is reflectible from the reasons given by the respondents. Be it noted, the file containing the reasons was produced before the tribunal. The tribunal, after perusal of the reasons and after referring to its earlier order, came to hold that the needs of the organization were paramount and, therefore, the respondents were fully justified in deciding not to absorb the petitioner in the organization as he would not meet the requirements of the technology used by them.