The borrowing department has the right to repatriate a deputationist to the parent department for good and sufficient reason, and an enquiry establishing prima facie materials for repatriation suffices for the decision.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The writ petitioner, who is on deputation to Council for Advancement of Peoples' Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), under aegis of Ministry of Rural Development, Government India and appointed as Regional Representative and Member Convenor, Regional Centre, Guwahati, has by the present petition challenged the order dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer, CAPART repatriating her to the parent Department of Personnel (A), Government of Assam.

2. The petitioner, who is a member of Assam Civil Services (ACS) and at the relevant point of time was serving as Extra Assistant Commissioner in the Department of Personnel (A), Government of Assam, was sent on deputation to CAPART vide order dated 22.11.2006 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, for appointment as Regional Representative and Member Convenor, Regional Centre, Guwahati for a period of 1 (one) year with effect from the date of handing over the charge in the parent Department. The petitioner was accordingly appointed as Regional Representative and Member Convenor, Regional Centre at Guwahati, CAPART, vide order dated 23.11.2006 issued by the Deputy Director General of CAPART, on deputation basis on foreign service terms and conditions for a period of 1 (one) year, on her services being placed at the disposal of CAPART. The petitioner accordingly joined her services in CAPART. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (A) Department, vide communication dated 11.4.2007 has also informed the Accountant General (A&E), Assam about the deputation of the petitioner to CAPART intimating the said authority that the period of deputation will be for 1 (one) year for the present with effect from 28.11.2006. The tenure of deputation of the petitioner was, however, extended by 2 (two) more years with effect from 28.11.2007, i.e., the date when the 1 (one) year period of deputation came to an end, by notification dated 21.11.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Personnel (A) Department, on the basis of the request made by the CAPART for that purpose. The Chief Administrative Officer, CAPART, vide office order dated 30.11.2007, consequently conveyed the approval of the competent authority for extension of deputation period in respect of the petitioner for a period of 2 (two) years with effect from 28.11.2007 on the existing terms and conditions to work as Regional Representative and Member Convenor, Regional Centre, Guwahati. By such order of extension, the tenure of deputation of the petitioner was to end on 28.11.2009. The Chief Administrative Officer of CAPART, however, by the impugned order dated 1.9.2008 has repatriated the petitioner to the parent department, i.e., the Department of Personnel (A), Government of Assam, and placed her Services at the disposal of the Government of Assam with immediate effect, which gives rise to the present writ petition.

3. A Single Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 5.9.2008, keeping in view the pleaded facts and documents annexed to the writ petition and also the proposition as propounded by the Apex Court in Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Anr. v. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 394 passed an interim order keeping the order of repatriation dated 1.9.2008 in abeyance. The said interim order has subsequently been extended by various orders passed including order dated 20.11.2008, by which order it has been observed that an endevour shall be made to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

4. I have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Rungta, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. H.M. Phookan, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

5. Mr. Bhuyan, Learned Coun