ROCKPO DABU LEWI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is a regular employee in the capacity of Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department ( in short, PWD), Arunachal Pradesh. While the petitioner was so serving, he was appointed on deputation for a period of one year to the Urban Development Department, to serve as a Programming Officer vide order No. SUD/E-71 /2K/ 2001 dated 27/01/2001, issued by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The said period of deputation having been expired, the Commissioner, Urban Development Department further extended the period of deputation vide order No. UD-3/96-97/pt/612 dated 09.05.2002 for another period of six months and after expiry of the said period, it was further extended up to 31/10/2003 vide order No. UD-3/96-97/pt dated 01.11.2002. Thereafter, even before expiry of the aforesaid period, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department vide order DOH/Estt- 119/01-02 dated 09.01.2003. Challenging the aforesaid repatriation order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for an order to permanently absorbing the petitioner in the Urban Development Department.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner being a bor-rowed officer, he has been repatriated to his parent department, and the allegation that such repatriation was made at the political instance has no legs to stand. Further, it is stated that the said repatriation was done even prior to the receipt of the note vide' Annexure D' to the writ petition and in fact, the said note dated 08.01.2003 was received by the Department in 30.01.2003, whereas the repatriation order was passed on 09.01.2003. It is submitted by Mr. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been rendering meritorious service in the borrowed department, he should have been permanently absorbed like the other borrowed officials as mentioned in the Annexure E to the writ petition. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that, on the face of it, the impugned order of repatriation has been made at the instance of the confidential note issued by the Minister (SW & WCD), dated 08.01.2003, and accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable, as the same has been passed in mala fide exercise of power.