Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.
Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.01.2021, whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department with stigma regarding the alleged irregularity of the petitioner, for which, the departmental inquiry is pending. The petitioner has also assailed the advertisement dated 20.01.2021 whereby the application for appointment on the post of Secretary on deputation has been called.
Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that there is no dispute on the point that the parent department of the petitioner is State Government and the petitioner has been discharging his duties on deputation in the Joint Entrance Examination Council, U.P., Lucknow as Secretary.
Sri Bhasin learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that on the post in question, however the petitioner was appointed on deputation, but such appointment of deputation was made pursuant to the advertisement and the exercise of selection was carried out.
Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the petitioner being deputationist has got no legal right to be retained in the borrowing department. It is the sole discretion of the parent department to get back his employee and in the present case the borrowing department is not ready to retain the petitioner any longer. So far as the indications of the fact regarding alleged irregularity of the petitioner and pending departmental enquiry is concerned, it may not be treated as stigmatic as the said fact is dependent upon the outcome of pending departmental enquiry.
On that, Sri Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the fact of alleged irregularity and pending departmental enquiry mentioned in the repatriation order dated 20.01.2021, is a stigmatic observation against the petitioner, for which, the petitioner shall be suffering in future. Had it been a simple repatriation order, the petitioner would have submitted his joining in his parent department but since a stigma has been casted against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 20.01.2021, therefore, this order may be quashed and the authority competent may be directed to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law.
Be that at it may, since the petitioner is being repatriated to his parent department by means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2021, therefore, no interference would be required to that extent. However, so far as the observation made in the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 regarding pendency of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and the alleged irregularity, which would be subject matter of the departmental inquiry, I am of the opinion that such observation is unwarranted and the said observation shall not affect the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and therefore the said observation shall be treated as expunged.
Accordingly, no relief can be granted by this writ petition.
The matter is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]