UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBRATA KUMAR LODH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 26th July 2012 in MA 258/12 and O.A. 337/11. The petitioners have been directed to absorb the respondent in the Ministry of Civil Aviation as Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation).

(2.) The Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as the respondent) was holding the post of Field Officer (CI) Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat which is a Group-B post. He applied for being posted on deputation as Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation) which is a Group-A post. He was appointed on deputation to the post for a period of five years from 9th July 2007. The respondent was transferred to Calcutta and joined the office of the Regional Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation) as an Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation). On first May 2009, a circular was issued by the Union Public Service Commission inviting applications for 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation) on the basis of deputation/absorption/reemployment. The respondent applied for absorption on the aforesaid post. On 28th October 2009, while still on deputation, the respondent was directed to take additional charge of the post of Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation, Calcutta). A letter was issued on 10th September 2010 to the respondent indicating that it was an offer of appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation). The letter discloses that the Minister of Civil Aviation had approved of the decision to absorb the respondent as an Assistant Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation) in the department of Civil Aviation Security on "absorption basis" with effect from the date he assumed charge. The Cabinet Secretariat was directed to transfer all records pertaining to the respondent to the bureau of Civil Aviation. The date on which the respondent was expected to assume charge in the bureau was to be intimated to him in due course.

(3.) Before any such letter intimating him the date of assumption of charge was issued to the respondent he received an office order on 6th April 2011, prematurely repatriating him to his parent department with immediate effect. The period of deputation was to expire on 8th July 2012. The respondent immediately approached the Administrative Tribunal questioning his premature repatriation. An interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 11th April 2011 by which he was permitted to continue in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. Consequently, the order of repatriation dated 16Th April 2011 was withdrawn by the Petitioners. The respondent thus continued on deputation pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal till the period of deputation expired on 8th July 2012.