Deputation Law has been summarized by the Allahabad High Court in its recent Judgment.
In this case, the Petitioner challenged the curtailment of his deputation and his repatriation by the
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to his parent corporation namely Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation, Jaipur (MMTC).
Petitioner was given an appointment on deputation, consequent to his selection, as Deputy Director at the regional office of UIDAI, Lucknow.
This appointment was for a period of 3 years from the date of taking over charge of the post or until further orders, whichever event takes place earlier.
After this, his term was given an extension from time to time by the department.
During the tenure of Petition, some complaints were filed against him. After an inquiry and exchange of show cause and reply, the Petitioner’s repatriation was approved.
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow observed that merely because there is no specific provision of repatriation of a
deputationist or curtailment of deputation in the Regulations, 2020
it cannot be said that such a person cannot be repatriated as aforesaid or his deputation cannot be curtailed.
Repatriation Implicit in the very nature of deputation
In the case of appointment by deputation also this can be done on grounds of unsuitability and unsatisfactory work, by a bonafide decision.
The word 3 years from the date of taking charge is followed by the words ‘until further orders’
which is indicative of the clear intent that deputation could be curtailed prior to 3 years and petitioner could be repatriated even earlier.
In view of the above, Court held that repatriation was permissible even under the Regulations, 2020.
Whether Repatriation Punitive or Simplicitor?
Allahabad HC at Lucknow observed that there can be no doubt that the Court can lift the veil to find out
the true nature of the order based on the theory of motive and foundation.
Hon’ble Court referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla Vs. State of U.P.; (1991) 1 SCC 691.
In this Supreme Court held that merely because a preliminary inquiry had been conducted on the basis of which the suitability of such temporary employee and his work and conduct was assessed
so as to form the requisite satisfaction for the continuance of such officiating Government servant and based thereon an innocuous order of termination simpliciter was passed
without referring to any misconduct instead of initiating formal disciplinary proceedings and issuing a charge sheet for punishing him, it would not render the order punitive.
Court held that in the present case impugned decision does not suffer from legal malice.
The decision has been taken as per norms and the law applicable to the subject.
Further, there cannot be a plea of malafide against the entire organisation, certainly not in the absence of any tangible material.
In view of the above Allahabad High Court at Lucknow dismissed the Petition.