N C PAUL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Accountant in State services in the Forest Department. He was working on deputatidn with M.P. State Mining Forest Produce, Commerce and Development Co-operative Federation Limited, (respondent No. 2) with its branch at Dindori (Mandla), (respondent No. 4). By order Anncxurc-P/1 dated 29.5.1996 issued by the Conservator of Forests, Central Circle, Jabalpur, he has been brought back from Dindori to his parent department at the same place in the Forest Division at Dindori, The said order has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies on a general circular issued by the Managing Director of the Federation to all Divisional Forest Officers dated 3rd April, 1996. By the said circular, the D.F.Os. have been instructed not to call any employee on deputation to the Federation without prior permission of the head office of the Federation. The learned Counsel contends that contrary to the above circular Annexure-P/4, the Conservator of Forests, Jabalpur who was not competent to call back the petitioner from the services of the Federation where he was working on deputation, called back the petitioner to Forest Department. The permission of the Managing Director in the head office having not been obtained, the order Annexure-P/1 was in excess of authority of the Conservator of Forests. On an advance notice of the petition to the Government Advocate, documents along with an application have been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been pointed out that the order passed by the Conservator of Forests calling the petitioner from the deputation back to parent department has been approved by the Managing Director of the Federation vide his communication dated 17.7.1996.

(3.) On the production of the above document, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order Annexure-P/1 when issued was without authority and is not validated by a subsequent order of approval or confirmation passed by the Managing Director. Strong reliance is placed on the observations in paragraph 5 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 416.