UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal and Respondent No.3, the original employer of Respondent No. 2, M/s Bharat Wagon and Engineering Co. Limited.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 2 was allowed a deputation on the post of Section Officer in the office of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and he got two extensions. When his 3rd year on deputation was to expire on 3.10.2005, by order dated 22.8.2005 contained in Annexure-5 an order was issued by the competent authority for repatriation of Respondent No. 2 to his parent employer, Respondent No. 3. He was relieved by order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure-6) w.e.f. 22.8.2005. Against the order of repatriation the Respondent No. 2 preferred O.A. No. 571 of 2005 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and that has been allowed by the impugned order dated 18th May, 2006. A perusal of that order clearly shows that in response to the O.A., a written statement had been filed by the officers of Debts Recovery Tribunal in which it was admitted that certain complaints had been received against the functioning of the Respondent No. 2 as Section Officer and after taking into account all relevant matters and for better functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna a decision had been taken to repatriate the Respondent No. 2 to his parent organization. The stand of the parent employer before the Tribunal was that it has no financial resources to pay to its employees. The learned Tribunal came to an opinion that the order of repatriation was on account of certain complaints against the Respondent No. 2 and in such circumstances, the Tribunal interfered with the order of the repatriation by quashing the same but gave liberty to the Respondents that if they feel that continuation of the Respondent No. 2 in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Office was not in the interest of administration then they would be free to issue a show-cause notice to him in respect of complaints and findings of the enquiry and after considering his show-cause, if they find the same unsatisfactory, the concerned Respondents may order again for his repatriation to the parent department regardless of the fact that the parent department is financially sound or not.

(3.) The issue raised in this writ petition is that an order of repatriation does not affect any right of the employee on deputation and a perusal of the actual order shows that no stigma was cast against him even by implication and hence the Tribunal should not have interfered with the order of repatriation in respect of Respondent No. 2. Considering such stand of the writ petitioner, for having a detailed consideration, the writ petition was admitted for final hearing.