Sitmaber Singh v. Union of India

VEENA BIRBAL, J. July 15, 2010 ssb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: July 15, 2010 + W.P.(C) 12773/2009 Shri Sitamber Singh ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Shrikant Tyagi, Adv. -versus- Union of India & anr ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma with Mr.Chandan Sharma, Advs for respondent no.2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes Veena Birbal, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 (Annexre P1) vide which respondent no.2 has relieved the services of the petitioner w.e.f 30th October, 2009 before the expiry of the deputation period. 2. Petitioner was appointed on 25.6.1979 and was working as a Statistical Assistant under the Office of Leprosy Officer at PL Sharma Hospital Campus, Meerut, U.P. In the year 2008, respondent no.2 advertised for three posts of "Research Investigator" on deputation basis. Petitioner applied for the said post and was appointed for the post of "Research Investigator" on a deputation basis for a period of three years w.e.f 18th June, 2008 vide office order dated 27th June, 2008. The period of deputation was for three years which was to expire on 17th June, 2011 (Annexure P3). It is stated that after joining respondent no.2, petitioner worked with dedication and performed well in the work assigned to him. In October, 2009, to the utter shock and surprise, petitioner was handed over the impugned letter dated 9th October, 2009 which was addressed to his parent department. As per the said letter, it was informed that the services of the petitioner would not be required w.e.f 30th October, 2009 and he would be relieved on that day. It is alleged that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that neither a show cause notice was issued nor an enquiry was conducted by respondent no.2 while passing the said order. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, it is stated that a deputationist has no legal right to a post and can be repatriated to his parent organisation at any point of time. It is stated that the decision to repatriate the petitioner was taken after reviewing the performance of the petitioner which revealed that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory and the decision to repatriate the petitioner back to his parent organisation was bonafide and taken in public interest. It is contended that the petitioner holds his lien in his parent organisation and would be entitled to join there. 4. The stand of respondent no.2 is that the petitioner was appointed on deputation with respondent no.2 as a Research Investigator. The work of the Research Investigator involves assisting the Research Officers in surveys for inclusion of castes and communities in the Central list of OBCs. The work is of a specialized nature and requires proficiency in the use of computers. The petitioner was found unsuitable for the nature of work involved and it was also found that the petitioner was not familiar with the use of computers and considering the unsuitability of the petitioner and unsatisfactory performance, it was decided to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department. It is also stated that the petitioner was frequently found unauthorisedly absent from his duty and from time to time, memos were served upon him regarding unsatisfactory work and unauthorized absence. Those memos are annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure A. It is also stated that before repatriating a deputationist, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing is required. It is contended that a deputationist has no right to a post nor he can insist that his deputation period may be continued and that the deputation period can be curtailed at any point of time. It is further stated that