Sarbdeep Singh Virk Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [2008] INSC 980 (16 May 2008)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12440 of 2008) Sarbdeep Singh
Virk ...
Appellants Versus The State of
Punjab and others ...
Respondents
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
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.
Back
