Calcutta High Court Upholds Premature Repatriation of Deputationist

Court dismisses Vukkem Rambabu's petition, affirming no vested right to continue on deputation

In a significant decision, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the premature repatriation of Vukkem Rambabu, a Senior Private Secretary, back to his parent department, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, from his deputation post at the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kolkata. This judgment reaffirms that deputationists do not have a vested right to remain on their deputation post indefinitely and can be repatriated under certain circumstances.

The division bench, comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, dismissed Rambabu's writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had upheld his repatriation. The court observed that the repatriation was in compliance with the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010, which allows for premature repatriation on grounds of unsuitability or unsatisfactory conduct, among other reasons.

Rambabu, who had joined the AFT, Kolkata, in April 2024 after a delay due to non-relief from his parent department, was served a notice for repatriation within six months. The notice cited unsatisfactory conduct and non-compliance with hierarchy as reasons for his repatriation. The High Court noted that Rambabu's repeated complaints and communications to higher authorities without following proper channels justified the repatriation decision.

The court also addressed Rambabu's contention regarding the necessity of approval from the Defence Minister for his repatriation, confirming that such approval had indeed been obtained prior to the issuance of the repatriation order.

In their judgment, the Justices emphasized the settled legal position that deputationists have no right to remain on deputation and can be repatriated by either the parent or borrowing department. The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat, to support this position.

Rambabu's reliance on Supreme Court judgments like Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India was deemed misplaced by the court, as those cases pertained to different factual circumstances.

Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's order and dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the repatriation process adhered to the principles of natural justice and the DOP&T guidelines.

Bottom Line:

Deputationist has no vested right to continue on the deputation post or to be absorbed in the department to which deputed. Premature repatriation of deputationist is permissible under the provisions of DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010, provided the required procedures, including a three-month advance notice, are duly complied with.

Statutory provision(s): DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010, Rule 255 of General Financial Rules, 2005, Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Vukkem Rambabu v. Union of India, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2816743