UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order dated September 1, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 302 of 1998. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are ; Opposite party No. 1 initially joined as a Constable in the Orissa State Police Department on December 19, 1972. In the year 1974 he was selected by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the 'C. B. I.') and was placed as Constable inits Orissa Branch at Bhubaneswar on deputation. In the year 1979, opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the State Police Department and on reversion to the parent department, he joined as A.S.I. in the Orissa Police and continued as such till 1986. On July 19, 1986, he was once again sent on deputation to the C. B. I. and was posted at Bhubaneswar. On October 1st, 1987, opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in the C.B.I.. While the matter stood thus, on December 11, 1991, the C.B.I. authorities considered the case of opposite party No. 1 for permanent absorption in the Central Bureau of Investigation and on April 20, 1992, the authorities requested the Director General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack as well as the State Government, for according necessary concurrence for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 as Sub Inspector in the C. B. I.with effect from November 12, 1991. After due consideration of the said proposal, the Government of Orissa in the Home Department was pleased to issue a 'No Objection Certificate (for short the 'N.O.C.') on November 20, 1992, intimating the C.B.I. authorities that the State Government has no objection if opposite party No. 1 is permanently absorbed in the C.B.I. opposite party No. 1 while working as Sub Inspector, on January 12, 1993. promoted to the rank of Inspector, C. B. I. . Thereafter another request was made by the C. B. I, authorities to the State Government to accord concurrence. On March 76, 1993, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Orissa, intimated the C.B.I. authorities that sanction of permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in C. B. I. had already been accorded by the State Government and the same had been forwarded to the C. B. I. vide letter dated November 20, 1992. Therefore, no further concurrence was necessary for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 to the rank of Inspector, C.B.I. Surprisingly once again in June 23, 1995, the C.B.I. authorities at New Delhi requested the Director General of Police, Orissa for according approval for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in the rank of Inspector of C.B.I.. In reply to the said request the Director General of Police, Orissa, again issued a N.O.C. on August 5, 1995, intimating the C.B.I. authorities that they have no objection for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 in C.B.I. However, on February 24, 1998, the Administrative Officer, C.B.I. directed for repatriation of opposite party No, 1 to the State Police. The said order was challenged by opposite party No. Z before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 302 of 1998.

(2.) THE present petitioner who were respondents 1,3,4 and 6 before the Tribunal filed a counter affidavit admitting most of the facts. However, a stand has been taken that though the State Government has submitted the N.O.C. for permanent absorption of opposite party No. 1 as Sub Inspector in C. B. I., in the meantime he was promoted as Inspector in the said organisation under deputation quota and as he had completed fiveyears of service as Sub Inspector, the approval accorded by the State Government on November 12, 1991, had become infructuous. A further plea has been taken that a deputationist has no vested right to be absorbed in the borrowing department and as the N.O.C. was not received in time the C. B. I. authorities rightly took a decision to repartriate opposite party No. 1 to his parent department. It is further submitted that for absorption as Inspector of C. B. I., one has to pass a Bachellor's Degree. Opposite party No. 1 did not possess the said Degree and, therefore, he cannot be promoted as the Inspector of C. B. I.

(3.) THE order passed by the Tribunal referred to the preceding paragraph was not complied by the C.B.I. authorities and opposite party No. 1 preferred O. A. No, 302 of 1998. The said application was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the Director, C. B. I., New Delhi to consider the case of the opposite party No. 1 for his absorption in the C. B. I. The said order was challenged by the C, B. I. authorities before this Court in O. J. C. No. 16704 of 1998 which was disposed of on December 7, 1998, with a direction to theDirector, C. B. I to consider the case of opposite party No. 1 for absorption in the C. B. I. as Sub Inspector within four weeks.