BAIDYANATHOJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two petitioners in this writ application. Their prayer is that the office order dated 31/1/1992 and 1/2/1992 issued by the respondent Joint State Transport Commissioner, Patna (Annexures 4 series) by which their services have been reverted to their parent department be quashed since the same has not been passed on compliance of the principles of Natural Justice.

(2.) The petitioners are constables employed in Bihar Police Service. It appears that pursuant to the statutory requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Transport Department had, pursuant to a policy decision of the Government requisitioned the services of different personnels from the Police Department to act as the Enforcement Officers. The said policy decision has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ application which, inter alia, shows that ordinarily the deputation of police personnel in the Transport Department will be for a period of three years. Keeping in view the said policy decision the services of the petitioners were placed with the Transport Department vide order dated 23/1/1991 and they joined at their places of posting in the Transport District Office, Ranchi on on 9/2/1991 and 3/3/1991. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 31/1/1992 and 1/2/1992 the respondent Joint State Transport Commissioner has returned their services to the parent department.

(3.) Shri Basudeo Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that their deputation being for three years pursuant to the policy decision of the Government contained in Annexure 1, the petitioners could not have been reverted to their parent department before the expiry of the said period. He has further submitted that the impugned orders of reversion are also bad because the same could not have been passed unless their services had been recalled by the parent department or in any event without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in the matter, which was admitted not granted in the present case. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. H. Phadnis v. State of Maharastra, reported in 1971 (2) SLR 345 (SC) and also on the case of Dr. Bhagat Singh v. the Vice-chancellor, Punjab University, reported in 1981 (2) SLR 329 (P. & H.).