The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority for acts of misconduct committed during the period of deputation is vested in the borrowing authority as per the CCS(CCA) Rules, and the lending department cannot initiate a disciplinary proceeding without a specific complaint from the borrowing authority.

1. Upon perusal of the materials on record and as agreed to by the learned counsel of both the parties and considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is taken up for hearing, at the admission stage.

2. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for, in the form of certiorari, an appropriate a order to quash the departmental proceeding, initiated by the respondent No. 2, namely, the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, General Administration (AR) Department, Agartala, (Disciplinary Authority), vide Memorandum, dated 25.9.2006, Annexure-5 to the writ petition and also prayed for a further direction, in the nature of writ of mandamus, to the respondents, to forward the applications of the petitioner for the post of Principal and Professor in the College of Agriculture, Tripura submitted on 22.3.2007 and not to obstruct the process of selection, if the petitioner is called for such selection, on the plea of the aforesaid Departmental Proceeding.

3. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

4. The case of the petitioner for decision in the instant writ petition is that while the petitioner was serving as a member of the Tripura Higher Agricultural Service, Grade-II and functioning as Sr. Horticulturist in the Directorate of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of -Tripura, the authority lent him to the Tripura Horticulture Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation'), to act as managing director of the said Corporation on and from 13.9.2002. As such, he served for one year two months in the said Corporation as managing director and thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent department on 10.11.2003, namely, the Directorate of Horticulture & Soil Conservation. When he was acting as a Sr. Horticulturist in his parent department after his repatriation,he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding vide order, dated 12.5.2004, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which was revoked after two and half years vide order, dated 31.10.2006, Annexure-2, to the writ petition.

5. During the period of his suspension, the petitioner in respect to a notification, applied for the post of Professor in the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), through proper channel, vide his prayer, dated 28.2.2005, but he was informed that the Government has declined to forward his prayer, vide letter, dated 19.3.2005, Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

6. Similarly again on 8.11.2006, the petitioner applied for the post of the Joint Director, I.C.A.R Research Complex at Meghalaya, but the same was also not forwarded by the respondents on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him.

7. In the meantime, on 25.09.2006, a Memorandum enclosed with Article of Charges has been issued, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petitioner, by the respondent No. 2, contemplating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the propriety and authority of the respondent No. 2 to initiate the said departmental proceeding, against the petitioner. Relying on the Memorandum, dated 17.8.2004, issued by the General Administration (AR) Department, it is contended by the petitioner that the departmental proceedings against the officers for their misconduct during the period of deputation would-be initiated only on specific proposal from the borrowing authorities in terms of the law already in force under rule 21 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a copy of the said Memorandum dated 17.8.2004 is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner also referred to a decision of this court rendered in WP(C) No. 455 of 2005 stating, inter alia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document