UNION OF INDIA Vs. CT SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT joined CISF as Constable in 1989 and he was working at mundali in 2006. Central Finger Print Bureau issued a notification dated 2nd february, 2006, which was circulated to CISF regarding requirement of Constable on deputation. The respondent applied for deputation and he was finally selected and absorbed on deputation to Central Finger Print Bureau on 25th april, 2006 and he is continuing on the said post. Vide Notification dated 19th march, 2007, the respondent was prematurely repatriated to his parent department, which was challenged by the respondent before the learned Tribunal on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice. The learned tribunal allowed the OA and quashed order dated 19th March, 2007 which is under challenge before us.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged order of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the selection process in which the respondent was selected was illegal as it suffered from non-consideration of similarly situated eligible candidates, non-fulfillment of criteria in the case of the respondent as complete ACR dossiers along with the annexures were not forwarded. It is further contended that the DPC was waiting for sponsoring of the candidates from CISF and the DPC was convened in haste within 24 hrs. without preparation of a comparative chart, suitability, fulfillment of criteria of other candidates, which vitiated the selection procedure and, therefore, there was no necessity to grant personal hearing to the respondent.

(3.) WE have heard the parties at length and have carefully considered their respective contentions. We have also perused the original record. The respondent was appointed for a fixed period of three years from 25th April, 2006 and he is entitled to hold the post for the said period. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry Vs. Ramakrishnan and others [ (2005) 8 SCC 394] relying on its earlier judgment in the case of parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India [ (1958) SCR 828] held that in the case where deputation is for a specific term, it cannot be curtailed except on the ground of suitability or unsatisfactory work. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 19th March, 2007 does not cast any stigma on the respondent. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is correct. The Tribunal has rightly held that since the order dated 19th march, 2007 adversely affects the respondent, he should have been heard in the matter and, therefore, the order dated 19th March, 2007 is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. We are in agreement with the said finding that the order dated 19th March, 2007 is violative of the principles of natural justice. We do not agree with the petitioner that there was no necessity for personal hearing to the respondent. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that the selection process of the respondent is illegal as similarly situated eligible candidates were not considered and complete ACR dossiers were not forwarded, we have examined the relevant records.