RADHA MOHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner herein is a Constable in the Police Department. He was sent on deputation to the Trade Tax Department for three years. While five months still remained for completion of his tenure on deputation, he was repatriated to his parent Police Department. A request was made on his behalf to the concerned officials for extension of his deputation for further two years whereupon he was allowed to continue in the borrowing department by the grace of the officers concerned. Now, even on said term having come to an end the petitioner has approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus for continuance of his deputation for further five years. Prior to approaching the court a representation was submitted by his wife directly to the Chief Minister who also happens to the Home Minister dealing with the Police Department requesting for the continuance for two years in the teeth of Rule 27 -A of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Sri K.S. Chauhan, Special Secretary in the Home Department is present in pursuance to the earlier orders of this court dated 5.5.2016 and 25.5.2016 which are quoted hereunder:

(2.) This was relied to support the action of the Under Secretary in sending the letter dated 25.1.2016 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Head Quarters, Allahabad, on receipt of the representation of the petitioner's wife which was sent directly to the Chief Minister who also happened to the be the Home Minister i.e. the Minister of the Department under which the petitioner is functioning, so as to call for a clear report alongwith recommendation within two days.

(3.) On being confronted with the provision of Rule 27 -A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 Sri Chauhan could not put forth any reasonable answer as to why such a representation directly submitted to the Chief Minister/Home Minister by the wife of a government servant was mechanically sent by the State Government to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) without scrutinizing as to whether such a representation was entertainable and maintainable in the teeth of Rule 27 -A read with explanation to Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules of 1956 which have been made under the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.