Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 449
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Ranjit More, CJ, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, J
Savita Dharmadhikari – Appellant
Versus
M/o Home Affairs – Respondent
O.A./4426/2015
Dr. Ashok Hamija with Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Mr. Gyanendra Singh
An IPS officer's unauthorized continuation of foreign service beyond the approved tenure constitutes deemed resignation under Rule 7(2)(c) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955.
Headnote:(A) All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 - Rule 7(2)(c) - Article 311 of the Constitution of India - Deemed resignation of an IPS officer due to unauthorized continuation of foreign service beyond approved tenure - The applicant was deemed to have resigned from the Indian Police Service as she failed to report back after the expiration of her deputation, despite multiple opportunities provided by the authorities. (Paras 15, 16, 18)
(B) Reasonable opportunity - The court emphasized that the applicant was given reasonable opportunities to explain her absence and to report back to her parent cadre, which she ignored. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an IPS officer, was on foreign deputation with UNDP and was deemed to have resigned from service due to her failure to return after the approved tenure expired, despite being informed multiple times.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had been given ample opportunities to return to duty and that her continued absence constituted a violation of the rules, leading to her deemed resignation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant was given reasonable opportunities to return to her duties and the validity of the deemed resignation notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's unauthorized continuation of service beyond the approved period justified the invocation of Rule 7(2)(c), and her claims of non-receipt of communications were not credible.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the OA, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) That this Hon’ble tribunal may be pleased to call for all the relevant records and documents from the Respondents relating to this matter.
(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Notification No. 24009/98/99-IPS.II dated 16.04.2008 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Respondent No. 1) vide which the Applicant has been treated as deemed to have resigned from the Indian Police Service and has been treated as “stands relieved” from the Indian Police Service under the amended Rule 7 (2)(c) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955.
(c) That the costs of this application may be provided for.
(d) Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer from the 1990 Batch Karnataka cadre, was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Government of Karnataka for a foreign assignment as Deputy Field Security Officer with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Jakarta, Indonesia. The applicant submitted that her deputation was extended multiple times, with the last approved extension up to June 30, 2007. The applicant contended that despite further extensions of her UN contract, she did not receive approval from the Indian authorities for these periods.
3. Applicant further stated that respondent no. 1 issued a memorandum to the applicant, informing her that the last extension of her deputation was allowed up to 30.06.2007. The applicant was asked to explain as to why the provisions of Rule 7 (2) (c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 be not invoked in her case and she be treated as having resigned from service for remaining away from her duties beyond the date of approved tenure of deputation to the above said post. This communication was received through email only. The applicant replied to the said memorandum by email. She explained that her previous UN contract would end on 31.12.2007, and requested for extension of the deputation. She also informed that meanwhile UNDP had offered her further extension of contract from 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2009 and she had accepted the extension of contract in November, 2007. She requested the respondents to allow her to honour and complete the period of the current UN contract from 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2009, and not to invoke the said rules in her case, based on the circumstances explained in her said email. However, she did not receive any reply to the said email. Applicant was time and again offered extensions and the same were accepted by her till 31.12.2015.
4. She contends that on 03.06.2015, upon inquiry, she came to know of a 2008 notification declaring her as ‘deemed to have resigned’ from service. This notification had not been previously communicated to her, prompting her to file current original application.
SUBMISSION MADE BY RESPONDENTS
5. The respondents filed their counter reply on 10.05.2016, wherein, it is stated that as per Para 9 of Department of Personnel & Training’s consolidated instructions dated 20.06.1991 relating to Foreign Assignments of Indian Experts, the maximum tenure of assignment is 05 (five) years during the first 25 years of service of an officer. It is further stated that the applicant was an Indian Police Service Officer of 1990 Batch and was in her first 25 years of service. She was initially appointed as Deputy Field Security Officer under UNDP, Jakarta w.e.f. 14.06.2002 and completed maximum tenure of 5 (five) years on 13.06.2007. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 05.07.2007 requested respondent no. 2 to intimate the date of joining of the applicant in the State Cadre after completion of her extended tenure with UNDP. In response thereto, respo
