AJAY KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the order dated 15.1.2002 issued under the signature of Secretary -cum -Commissioner, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved with immediate effect and his service has been returned to his parent department i.e. Bihar State Electricity Board.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in Bihar State Electricity Board (here -in -after referred to as the Board). He was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer. The Board vide its notification dated 29.8.1998 deputed the services of the petitioner and of one Lal Saheb Singh to the Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar. While they were waiting for posting their services were returned to the Board with immediate effect vide letter dated 6.1.1999. The petitioner and aforesaid Lal Saheb Singh filed C.W.J.C. No. 351/99 challenging the order dated 6.1.1999. The said writ petition was allowed on 10.3.1999 holding that cancellation of deputation at the instance of Minister of the Department for extraneous and irrelevant consideration inspite of their service having been taken on deputation by the department is vitiated in law. However, the deputationst has no right to remain at the place of deputation if the department does not want to keep on the ground that vigilance cases are pending against him. It will be open for the department to request the Board to send the names of other Executive Engineers for deputation and on receipt of the names by the Board the department may select other Executive Engineers for deputation and may return back the services of the petitioner. The Building Construction Department filed L.P.A. No. 420/99 against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.3.1999 in which notice was issued to the respondents on limited question of expunging the comments made by the Court against the concerned Minister from the judgment, which is pending. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6.5.1999 the petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Estimate Division -2, Patna till further order, Annexure -5. Respondent -department vide letter dated 21.4.2001 fixed the term of deputation of the petitioner to three years from the date of his joining. While he was working in the department the Board vide letter dated 8.12.1999 sent the names of five Executive Engineers for selection for deputation in the department. However, subsequently the Secretary of the Board vide letter dated 16.11.2001 informed the respondents that out of the names sent for selection for deputation Dasrath Singh and Tripit Narain Singh have been promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer and Sri Binod Prasad Singh is working as Joint Secretary and as such expressed inability to depute their services and requested to consider the case of remaining two Electrical Executive Engineers for deputation. Out of two, Sri Jugal Kishore Lai was not selected as serious allegations were pending against him and Sri Dilip Kumar Singh was selected. However, approval of the Chief Minister was not obtained and the order, annexure -1 has been passed relieving the petitioner from the date of issue of order i.e. 15.1.2002 and returning his services to the Board, the present department.

(3.) IT is evident from the order, Annexure -1 that service of the petitioner has been returned to the parent department i.e. the Board on administrative ground and he was relieved with immediate effect i.e. 15.1.2002, the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that term of deputation was fixed vide letter dated 21.4.2001 i.e. deputation would be for three years from the date of joining. Three years are going to expire on 6,5.2002. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Shiv Shankar Prasad Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar & others, 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 169, where it has been held that no employee on deputation has a right to continue on deputation unless and until the terms of deputation so provide. It is well established rule of law that a person on tenure post can be dismissed and removed as the tenure is not a carte balance (sic ''blanche) for all kinds of contumacies, misdeeds and failures. Similar question was raised in the case of Ram Naresh Trivedi V/s. State of Bihar & others, 1991(1) P.L.J.R. 505. A Division Bench of this Court has overruled such contention on the ground that it is a removal for the post and not from the service. Similarly in the case of Kunal Nanda V/s. Union of India and another, (2000)5 S.C.C. 362 the Apex Court has held that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. In the case of Sri Hira Lal Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 2001(2) B.L.J. 712 : 2001(3) PLJR 271 a Bench of this Court has held that no person has a right to remain on the post on deputation basis. He may at any time be reverted to his parent post/cadre if the order is not likely to cause any loss or prejudice to him.