Sarbdeep Singh Virk vs State Of Punjab & Ors

2. The instant appeal is directed against interim order

dated April 25, 2008, rendered by the Division 2 Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008 staying

the order dated April 3, 2008 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in

Original Application No. 692-CH of 2007 (1) holding

that the repatriation of the appellant to the State

of Maharashtra under order of Union of India dated

April 10, 2007 as also his joining in his parent

cadre under the State of Maharashtra is valid, (2)

quashing the order of suspension dated April 4,

2007 as well as holding that final authority to take

disciplinary action after termination/expiry of the

period of deputation vests with the Central

Government and (3) directing the State of Punjab to

remit the entire matter relating to the disciplinary

proceedings against the appellant to the Central

Government for taking a final decision.

3. The appellant is a 1970 batch IPS Officer of

Maharashtra cadre. In the year 1984 he was 3 specially sent to Punjab to combat militancy. It is

the case of the appellant that the single minded

devotion to get the State of Punjab free from

militancy bore fruits and today the State has

become one of the most peaceful and prosperous

States in India. The appellant was promoted as

Director General of Police, Punjab, and he took

several measures for public good. He issued several

instructions to the police force such as (i) not to

accept Diwali gifts, (ii) not to heed to any political

interference and follow the rule book (iii) not to bow

to pressures in cases of land grabbing even if

political leaders were involved, (iv) to adopt a

professional attitude, etc. According to him

because of his commitment to duty he earned wrath

of certain sections of politicians and, therefore, false

and frivolous allegations were leveled against him

by the respondent Nos. 5 and 7. After the formation

of new Government the respondent Nos. 5 and 7

requested through proper channel for pre-mature 4 termination of the repatriation of the appellant. The

appellant also sought pre-mature termination of

repatriation. The Government of Punjab did not

object to the request of the appellant for pre-mature

termination of his repatriation. On March 23, 2007

a First Information Report being FIR No. 98 of 2007

was lodged in which one Vijay Pal Singh was named

as an accused. It is the case of the respondent that

during police interrogation, said Vijay Pal Singh

allegedly stated that he had purchased some land

for the appellant. On March 23, 2007 the

investigating agency had moved an application

before the competent court seeking discharge of

accused Vijay Pal Singh from FIR No. 98 of 2007.

On the basis of the statement made by Vijay Pal

Singh during his interrogation, a departmental

inquiry was sought to be initiated against the

appellant and the appellant was placed under

suspension by order dated April 4, 2007.

Apprehending arrest in a false case the appellant 5 moved an application seeking anticipatory bail with

reference to FIR No. 98 of 2007. On notice being

served, the Investigating Officer made a statement

before the court that the appellant was not required

with reference to the said case. The appellant

moved Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 54610-M of

2007 seeking transfer of investigation of the

criminal case to CBI. The respondent State again

made a statement on January 16, 2008 that the

appellant was not required in connection with FIR

No. 98 of 2007. The appellant was served with

article of charges. Meanwhile, the Government of

Maharashtra gave its no objection certificate to the

Central Government for pre-mature termination of

repatriation of the appellant. The Government of

Maharashtra also sent a copy of letter dated March

28, 2007 to the Government of Punjab, but no

objection was raised by the Government of Punjab.

For the first time on April 12, 2007 the Government

of Punjab wrote to the Central Government that by 6 an order dated April 4, 2007, issued by the

Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab,

the appellant was put under suspension. The

Central Government, by an order dated April 10,

2007, ordered pre-mature termination of the

repatriation of the appellant from Punjab to his

parent cadre Maharashtra. The order dated April

10, 2007 was neither reviewed nor recalled and is

still in force. On April 12, 2007 the Government of

Punjab raised an objection to the pre-mature

termination of the repatriation of the appellant from

Punjab to Maharashtra on the ground of his alleged

suspension from service by order dated April 4,

2007. A case of possession of disproportionate

assets was registered by the Punjab Vigilance

Bureau against the appellant and he was arrested

on September 9, 2007. Before effecting arrest of the

appellant neither the Delhi Police nor the

Maharashtra Government nor the Central

Government was informed. Before registration of 7 the said case no explanation or comment was

sought for from the appellant. As the appellant was

of the opinion that order suspending him as well as

registering a case against him for possessing

disproportionate assets were illegal, he moved

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench

for quashing of those orders. The Tribunal, by

order dated April 3, 2008, partly allowed the

Original Application moved by the appellant and

held that his repatriation to the State of

Maharashtra under order of Union of India dated

April 10, 2007 as well as his joining parent cadre

under the State of Maharashtra was valid. The

Tribunal further held that the order of suspension

dated April 4, 2007 was bad in law and quashed the

same. It was also held by the Tribunal that final

authority to take disciplinary action after

termination/expiry of the period of deputation was

the Central Government and directed the State of

Punjab to remit the entire matter relating to the 8 disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

appellant to the Central Government for taking a

final decision.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the above mentioned findings

and directions given by the Tribunal, the State of

Punjab has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by filing CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008. The

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by order dated

April 25, 2008, has stayed the operation of the

order dated April 3, 2007 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,

Chandigarh, in Original Application No. 692-CH of

2007, giving rise to the instant appeal.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length and in great detail. This Court has

also considered the documents forming part of the

appeal.

9

6. As noticed earlier the Union Government, by order

dated April 10, 2007, has repatriated the appellant

to the State of Maharashtra whereas the order of

suspension dated April 4, 2007 is quashed by the

Tribunal. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion

that after termination/ expiry of the period of

deputation the final authority to take disciplinary

action against the appellant would be the Central

Government. The respondent No. 3 herein, i.e., the

State of Maharashtra had filed written statement

before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the

said written statement it was mentioned that the

appellant had reported for duty in the State of

Maharashtra on April 27, 2007 and was allowed to

join the duties in his parent cadre after his

repatriation to Maharashtra by the Central

Government. It was further mentioned in the reply

that the appellant had joined the Government of

Maharashtra on April 27, 2007 and as no post in

the rank of Director General of Police was vacant he 10 was made to wait compulsorily. The statements

made by the State of Maharashtra in its written

statement filed before the Central Administrative

Tribunal are reiterated before this Court by the

learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra. As

the appellant has already joined duties in parent

cadre pursuant to the order issued by the Central

Government, this Court is of the opinion that the

High Court was not justified in staying the

declaration made by the Tribunal that repatriation

of the appellant from the State of Punjab to the

State of Maharashtra was valid. The order dated

April 10, 2007 repatriating the appellant to the

State of Maharashtra will have to be given effect

notwithstanding the order of suspension dated April

4, 2007. The declaration made by the Tribunal that

the Central Government is competent to take

disciplinary action against the appellant and

directing the State of Punjab to remit the entire

matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings 11 initiated against the appellant to the Central

Government should not have been stayed by the

High Court.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

this Court is of the opinion that the interim order

dated April 25, 2008, passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008,

deserves to be modified by clarifying that it would

be open to the State of Maharashtra to give posting

to the appellant on his repatriation to the State of

Maharashtra from the State of Punjab.

8. For the foregoing reasons the appeal partly

succeeds. It is clarified that in view of repatriation

of the appellant to the State of Maharashtra under

order dated April 10, 2007 of the Union of India it

would be open to the State of Maharashtra to give

posting to the appellant as Director General of

Police. This Court is informed by the learned

counsel for the parties that CWP No. 6821-CAT of 12 2008, filed by the State of Punjab, is listed for final

disposal before the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh on May 21, 2008. Having

regard to the facts of the case the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana is requested to dispose of CWP

No. 6821-CAT of 2008 finally on or before May 31,

2008. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

............................J. [J.M. Panchal] New Delhi;

May 16, 2008.