HIRA LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by notification No. 346 dated 14.1.2000 by which he has been repatriated to his parent department, namely, Agriculture Department. His services had been placed at the disposal of the Rural Development Department by the Agriculture Department on 30.12.1996. After deputation, he was posted as Block Development Officer on 30.6.1998.

(2.) IT appears that similar repatriation order was passed against the petitioner on 3.11.1999 which he challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11534 of 1999. By order dated 20.12.1999, this Court observed that the matter relating to period of deputation cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner was at liberty to raise his grievance before the competent authority. It is pertinent to mention here that the said writ petition seems to have been argued on the premise that the period of deputation was three years and, therefore, his repatriation was premature. Be that as it may, pursuant to the above said order dated 20.12.1999 of this Court, the petitioner filed representation which was rejected by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Rural Development Department, on 14.1.2000. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order in this writ petition and consequential directions.

(3.) THE case of Depti Prakash Banerjee (supra) related to termination of the services of a probationer. The Court observed that even though the services of the probationer can be terminated without any inquiry where it is proposed to be done on the ground of misconduct, inquiry with respect to the allegation constituting misconduct must be held. In this connection, the Court made distinction between 'foundation ' and 'motive ' and observed that where the foundation of the order is misconduct the person is entitled to an opportunity of hearing. The case of K.H. Phadnis (supra) was one of temporary affiliation on a post. The person concerned was an employee of the Department of Excise and Prohibition in the Government of Bombay. In view of his past experience in the Civil Supplies Department, he was appointed on the post of Controller of Foodgrains Distribution in the Civil Supplies Department. Later certain accusations were made by him following his daughter 'smarriage whereafter he was 'repatriated ' from the post. The Court observed that a Government servant holding a temporary post and having lien on substantive past may be sent back on substantive post in ordinary course in exigency of service but where such reversion is the result of accusations against character and integrity of the person, the order becomes stigmatic and in such a situation he becomes entitled to inquiry and opportunity of hearing.