Ghulam Mohammed, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings, dated 26.08.2009, issued by the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the order dated 18.01.2010 passed in O.A.No.10997 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;

The petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in Prakasam District on 18.10.1977 and subsequently, promoted as Head Constable and posted at Tangaturu vide order, dated 16.06.2007. He states that without completing one year of service at Tangaturu, he was transferred to Pullalacheruvu, by order, dated 09.05.2008, passed by second respondent, who again transferred him from Pullalacheruvu to Kothapatnam and from Kothapatnam to Komarolu Police Station vide orders, dated 02.01.2009 and 02.05.2009 respectively. When the petitioner was on medical leave, the second respondent deputed him from Komarolu Police Station to Guntakal Government Railway Police vide order,dated 26.08.2009. Assailing the said deputation, the petitioner filed O.A.No.10997 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same. The petitioner filed Review MA No.396 of 2010 in O.A.No.10997 of 2009 before the Tribunal and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the second respondent frequently effecting transfers to the petitioner within a short period and has deputed him to Railway Police contrary to the procedure and that neither the borrowing department made a request to the parent department for his deputation nor his consent was obtained. He further contended that keeping in view of the allegations and pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the second respondent effected transfers as well as deputation as a measure of punishment, which is illegal and arbitrary. To substantiate the plea of consent, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UMAPATI CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR (1999) 4 SCC 659 wherein it was held as under:

“Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organization (commonly referred to as the parent department or leading authority) to another department or cadre or organization (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not”.

Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB v. INDER SINGH AIR 1998 SC 7 wherein it was held as under:

“Concept of ‘deputation’ is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. ‘Deputation’ has a different connotation in-service law and the dictionary meaning of the word ‘deputation’ is of no help. In simple words ‘deputation’ means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside is cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the