Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Approval for Officers from Another State or State Corporation - When an officer belongs to a different State or State Corporation, the approval for transfer or deputation must come from the parent State or parent Corporation, not from the investigating or receiving State. The legal framework emphasizes that the authority to approve such transfers resides with the officer's original or parent authority. For example, the State Government may transfer any officer or employee of the Corporation from one Corporation to another provided that... such officer or employee who is in any Corporation for more than 3 years shall necessarily be transferred by the State ["Lakhanlal Sahu VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]. Similarly, the transfer on deputation... shall not require consultation with the concerned Corporation or officer before passing the order ["Lakhanlal Sahu VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"].
Lien and Tenure of Officers on Deputation - Officers transferred on deputation retain their lien in the parent organization, and the period of deputation should be specified; it cannot be indefinite. The lien ensures that the officer's rights, pay, and allowances are protected, and the transfer does not disadvantage them. Since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation, therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come ["Madhuri Undrajavarapu VS Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Administration) (Recruitment) - Andhra Pradesh"], ["BHIMENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Procedural Requirements and Authority - Granting approval or sanction for transfer or deputation is a necessary step and must be strictly followed. The Supreme Court has held that grant of sanction/approval is not a mere empty formality and the same must be strictly followed ["BHIMENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]. Approvals should be obtained from the competent authority, usually the parent State or parent Corporation, before initiating such transfers, and failure to do so renders the process illegal.
Implication for Officers Belonging to Different States or Corporations - The legal position is clear that the parent State or Corporation holds the authority for approval, and transfer or deputation from a different State or Corporation cannot be approved solely by the receiving or investigating State. This ensures proper administrative control and adherence to procedural rules.
Analysis and Conclusion:The sources collectively establish that when an officer belongs to a different State or State Corporation, approval for transfer or deputation must come from the officer’s parent State or parent Corporation. The investigating or receiving State does not have the authority to approve such transfers. Additionally, the officer's lien, tenure, and rights are protected by law, and procedural compliance—particularly obtaining necessary approvals—is mandatory. This framework maintains organizational hierarchy and legal propriety in inter-State or inter-Corporation transfers.
In the complex landscape of corporate and public sector investigations in India, one recurring challenge arises: If the officer belongs to another State or another State Corporation, approval must come from that parent State / Corporation, not from the investigating State. This principle underscores the importance of jurisdictional respect, proper authorization, and safeguards against arbitrary actions. Whether probing corruption or handling internal transfers, understanding these rules is crucial for investigators, corporations, and public servants alike.
This blog delves into the legal framework, drawing from key judgments like Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and related cases on deputation and repatriation. We'll explore how these apply to inter-state scenarios, offering practical insights while noting this is general information—not specific legal advice.
Investigations involving public servants or corporate officers often require prior approvals to prevent frivolous probes and protect official duties. Under Section 17A of the PC Act, as detailed in Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472, prior approval of the State Government is mandatory before inquiring into offenses linked to a public servant's official recommendations or decisions. The document emphasizes: The approval process involves the Investigating Officer presenting credible evidence and material to the State Government, which then considers whether an investigation is warranted.
This approval isn't a sanction for prosecution but a preliminary check. The court in Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 clarified: The approval does not equate to sanction for prosecution; it merely permits investigation to proceed. Importantly, it's the relevant State Government's discretion, based on prima facie evidence, to avoid unwarranted harassment of public officials.
But what if the officer hails from another state or corporation? The PC Act focuses on public servants, yet principles extend to corporate contexts, especially state-owned entities like road transport or municipal corporations.
Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 doesn't explicitly outline inter-state procedures, noting: The document primarily addresses investigations involving public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act... It underscores the importance of prior approval but does not explicitly specify procedures for inter-state officers or corporate investigations outside the scope of the Act.
However, inferred rules suggest adherence to similar safeguards. For corporate investigations spanning states, investigators must secure authorization from the officer's parent state or corporation. This aligns with broader employment and jurisdictional laws, preventing overreach.
Related judgments reinforce that parent entities hold sway over their officers. In Vision Family Salon And Spa vs Prl.Secretary Home - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18441, involving Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) post-bifurcation, the court ruled: That post bifurcation, the employees who originally belongs to TSRTC by their recruitment must go back to their parent region/corporation. Repatriation orders by depot managers were deemed arbitrary and illegal due to lack of formal cadre bifurcation. The court allowed writs, stressing: Court ruled that repatriation orders of employees on deputation were arbitrary due to lack of formal cadre bifurcation, enforcing employee rights against selective discrimination.
Similarly, in municipal corporation transfers under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act (referenced in Dileep Kumar Uranw S/o Late Sukhi Ram Uranw VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 30), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held: Since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation, therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. Section 58(5) and (6) limit transfers to deputation between corporations, not other entities, quashing improper orders.
Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress VS State of M. P. - 1994 Supreme(MP) 822 echoes this: It only lays down that the State Government has a power to send any officer or servant of the Municipal Corporation to another on deputation, but for all purposes of promotion and other benefits, the incumbent will be treated to be in his parent department.
In Pramod Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh, post-deputation expiry mandates return to the parent department: After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department. These cases illustrate that parent approval or involvement is non-negotiable, especially sans finalized cadre reallocations.
Pawan Kumar Singhal VS State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 372 and Prem Kumar Pachauri VS State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 377 under M.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1956, Section 58(5), affirm state government powers for transfers but subject to protections: The State Government may transfer any officer or employee of the Corporation from one Corporation to another provided that such officer or employee who is in any Corporation for more than 3 years shall necessarily be transferred.
Even in absorption scenarios like West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited VS West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Employees Union - 1984 Supreme(Cal) 61, approvals from higher authorities (e.g., Chief Minister) validate moves, but locus standi limits challenges unless fundamental rights are at stake.
When an investigating state targets an officer from another state/corporation:- Seek Parent Approval First: Mirror Section 17A by approaching the parent entity with credible evidence. Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 advises: The decision is at the discretion of the State Government, which considers whether to allow investigation.- Address Deputation Nuances: Lien remains with the parent, so tenure must be specified Dileep Kumar Uranw S/o Late Sukhi Ram Uranw VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 30. Arbitrary repatriations fail without bifurcation Vision Family Salon And Spa vs Prl.Secretary Home - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18441.- Jurisdictional Cooperation: Use inter-governmental agreements or MoUs for clarity, as unresolved cadres lead to quashed orders.
| Scenario | Key Requirement | Supporting Case ||----------|-----------------|-----------------|| PC Act Probe | State Govt Prior Approval | Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 || Road Transport Repatriation | Parent Corporation Return Post-Bifurcation | Vision Family Salon And Spa vs Prl.Secretary Home - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18441 || Municipal Deputation | Specified Lien Tenure, Parent Benefits | Dileep Kumar Uranw S/o Late Sukhi Ram Uranw VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 30, Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress VS State of M. P. - 1994 Supreme(MP) 822 || General Transfer | State Govt Power w/ Safeguards | Pawan Kumar Singhal VS State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 372 |
These principles apply mainly to public servants and state corporations. Private corporate investigations may differ, relying on internal policies or CrPC provisions. Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 limits scope: Specific procedures for corporate investigations or inter-state officer investigations outside this context are not detailed.
Further, approvals don't imply guilt, serving only as procedural gateways.
In summary, while Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472 sets the tone for public servant probes, deputation cases like Vision Family Salon And Spa vs Prl.Secretary Home - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18441 and Dileep Kumar Uranw S/o Late Sukhi Ram Uranw VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 30 affirm parent entity primacy in inter-state matters. This layered approach balances investigation needs with employee protections.
Disclaimer: This post provides general insights based on cited judgments. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts. Always consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
References:- Shreeroopa, D/o. Late G. Thimma Naik VS State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration and Reforms (DPAR) - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 472: PC Act Section 17A procedures.- Vision Family Salon And Spa vs Prl.Secretary Home - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18441: TSRTC/APSRTC repatriation.- Dileep Kumar Uranw S/o Late Sukhi Ram Uranw VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 30, Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress VS State of M. P. - 1994 Supreme(MP) 822, Pawan Kumar Singhal VS State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 372, Prem Kumar Pachauri VS State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 377: Municipal deputation rules.
#InterStateLaw, #CorporateProbes, #PCActInsights
That post bifurcation, the employees who originally belongs to TSRTC by their recruitment must go back to their parent region/corporation. ... More particularly, the issue with regard to who belongs to which State Corporation is yet to be finalized as the cadre bifurcation between the two Corporations is not even initiated. ... He submits that the cadre bifurcation in both the Corporations has not been taken place so far and there i....
on the deputation to another department is promoted in the parent department, there is no option the order was not issued subject to the ratification/approval of the such arrangement or higher assignment given to Shri Atul Sharma. ... State of J&K SLJ 1990 J&K 8; Parashu v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1991 (6) SLR 551; Avtar Singh v. ... to Engineering Wing of the Corporation and does not fall in the consideration zone for promotion to the ....
will be paid a provisional pension based on the the issuance of social status certificates, their and others vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670 also cannot come
The Madhya Pradesh High Court further held that since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation, therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. ... (6), transfer on deputation any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation#HL_END....
away from his parent Corporation for all times to come. ... Transfer.-- Subject to the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, the State Government may transfer any officer or employee of the Corporation from one Corporation to another provided that such officer or employee who is in any Corporation for more than 3 years shall necessarily be transferred by the State ... (5) of Section 58 to transfer ....
He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore and another v. P. N. Nanjundiah and another reported in (1969) 3 S. C. C. 633. The aforesaid case does not seem to have laid down the proposition which Mr. Chatterjee has canvassed before us. ... Strangely enough, the writ petitioners have not challenged the propriety and/or legality of such approval nor the writ petitioners have made the State government a party to the present writ petiti....
Under S.173(8), the investigating officer has the power to make further investigation into the offence. ... 17. ... State of Maharashtra (supra); Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2006 (4) SCC 359, Hari Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (5) SCC 733, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Others (supra), M. Subramaniam and Another v. S. ... The learned counsel relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. Shashi Prabha Shukla and Another, 2017....
After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy (1999) 4 SCC 659, State of Punjab and others vs. ... It is not the case of the State Government that the petitioner was originally appointed in any other cadre and has been temporarily sent to State cadre of State Municipal Services (Executive) and there is no quarrel on this It is thus clear that the petitioner belongs to #HL_S....
Since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation, therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. ... It only lays down that the State Government has a power to send any officer or servant of the Municipal Corporation to another on deputation, but for all purposes of promotion and other benefits, the incumbent will be treated to be in his parent department/#HL_START....
The Madhya Pradesh High Court further held that since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation,therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. ... or servant of a Municipal Corporation to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the Officer or Servant concerned bef....
5.2. Since the above said Rule 14 of 2000 Rules is made subject to provision of section 58 of 1956 Act, it would be fruitful and worthwhile to reproduce relevant section 58(5) & (6) of 1956 Act as follows :- Transfer :- Subject to the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, the State Government may transfer any officer or employee of the Corporation from one Corporation to another provided that such officer or employee who is in any Corporation for more than 3 years shall necessarily be transferred by the State Government."
5.2. Since the above said Rule 14 of 2000 Rules is made subject to provision of section 58 of 1956 Act, it would be fruitful and worthwhile to reproduce relevant section 58(5) & (6) of 1956 Act as follows :- Transfer :- Subject to the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, the State Government may transfer any officer or employee of the Corporation from one Corporation to another provided that such officer or employee who is in any Corporation for more than 3 years shall necessarily be transferred by the State Government."
The principle no way offends the attempt of the 8th respondent to have the transfer of experience, works and assets to the company from him. No.94, nothing illegal can be considered to have been disclosed by lifting the veil. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The Income-Tax Officer and another (1964 (7) SCR 17), a corporation, though statutory, was noted to have a personality of its own, distinct from that of the State or other shareholders and the doctrine that a corporation has a separate legal entity of its own, is firmly rooted from notions drafted from comm....
His explanation was that he was suffering from jaundice. 1st Respondent could not attend the training because of his illness. Management has not accepted his explanation and enquiry was ordered. [Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited v. The Presiding Officer and another], the workman who was a conductor of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited was absent from duty without leave for about a month.
"It is also necessary to make it clear that present petitioners secured appointments on the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of forged, fake and false caste certificates. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & another. In these petitions, though the question in issue raised, the same is not categorically answered and on facts, the Court has rejected the Writ Petition after making the following observations:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
