The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repatriation of a government servant on deputation can be based on a valid assessment of performance, conduct, and utility, and may not require notice or disciplinary proceedings if in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Apporva Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kazim Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner has raised challenge to the order dated 8 July 2020, passed by the second respondent, Director State Urban Development Agency (for short ‘SUDA’), repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. A further challenge has been raised to the consequential order dated 15 July 2020, whereby, the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Project Officer, District Unnao Development Authority Sultanpur, and order dated 29 July 2020, whereby, the fourth respondent has been posted on the said post.

3. The facts, briefly stated, for the purposes of the present writ petition, is that petitioner came to be appointed in 1987 on the post of Junior Clerk in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of U.P. Pursuant to a requisition issued by the State Urban Development Agency on 21 June 2017, petitioner applied for appointment on deputation for the post of Project Officer. The requisition was followed by an advertisement dated 26 June 2017, published in daily Amar Ujala. Petitioner applied for the post of Project Officer through proper channel on 3 July 2017, upon selection, petitioner was issued appointment order dated 27 October 2017. An agreement dated 17 November 2017, setting forth the terms and conditions of appointment was entered between the petitioner and SUDA, wherein, the maximum period of deputation was provided at 5 years, but renewable every year. On accepting the terms and conditions of appointment, petitioner came to be relieved by his parent department on 4 December 2017, thereafter, petitioner submitted his joining before the second respondent on 5 December 2017. Petitioner came to be posted Project Officer, District Urban Development Authority, Sultanpur (for short ‘DUDA’) on 2 January 2018, consequently, petitioner joined the post at Sultanpur on 6 January 2018.

4. Petitioner after putting in two and half years of service, by the impugned order dated 8 July 2020, came to be repatriated to his parent department on administrative ground. Consequently, petitioner came to be relieved by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, on 15 July 2020. Aggrieved, petitioner instituted the instant writ petition, wherein, an interim order came to be passed on 17 November 2020, staying the effect and operation of the impugned order and a further direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner. It appears that the second respondent declined to reinstate the petitioner, but paid the salary for the remaining period of contract for that year.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions while assailing the impugned order:

(i) that the impugned order is unreasoned, non-speaking and arbitrary;

(ii) that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order;

(iii) that status of the petitioner on appointment on deputation is distinct from a transferee on deputation;

(iv) that petitioner could not have been removed/reverted during the term of deputation without affording opportunity or show cause;

(v) that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order.

6. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 757; Union of India vs. S.N. Maity, (2015) 4 SCC 164 ; Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others, (2005) 8 SCC 394 & Balmer Lawrie and Company and others vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and others, (2013) 8 SCC 345.

7. In rebuttal, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that petitioner failed to discharge his duties satisfactorily with full dedication in the interest of SUDA. The organization is engaged in implementing various schemes of the Central Government and/or State Government for urban poor, consequently, the benefic