Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusASHOK DESHMUKH & ANR.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 164
- Decided
- 11 May 1988
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
Rule 14 does not govern repatriation of deputed officers, and unsubstantiated allegations of bias cannot justify quashing an administrative order made in the ordinary exigencies of service.
Summary
Ashok Deshmukh, a permanent officer of the Social Welfare Department, was deputed as an officiating Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department in March 1983. He was repatriated to his parent department in June 1984 by an order of the Secretary, which he challenged through a civil suit and subsequently a writ petition. The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the repatriation, holding that it violated Rule 14 of the State Civil Services Rules and was based on alleged bias and mala‑fide conduct of the Secretary. The Supreme Court held that Rule 14, which deals with reversion after officiating promotion, does not apply to deputation cases, and that unsubstantiated allegations of bias are insufficient to set aside an administrative order made in the exigencies of service. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the State's discretion to repatriate the officer.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules applies to the repatriation of an officer deputed from one department to another.
- Whether the repatriation order was arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, or based on bias and mala‑fide intent sufficient to warrant quashing.
- Whether the officer had a vested right to continue on deputation absent a specific rule or period.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 311
- Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Ruless. Rule 14
Subjects
deputationrepatriationcivil service rulesadministrative discretionbiasmala fideArticle 14Article 311Rule 14
Judgment
A STATE CF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ASHOK DESHMUKH & ANR.
MAY 11, 1988
B
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.)
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules: Rule 14--Does not apply to
a case of deputation from one department to another-Mere allegations
of bias and ma/a fides-Not sufficient to quash administrative orders
made in exigencies of administration.
c
Respondent Ashok Desbmnkh, was a Panchayat and Social Edu-
cation Organiser in the Social Welfare Department, Government of •
Madhya Pradesh, when be was temporarily posted as an officiating
Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development
D Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on I Ith March,
1983. His services were returned hack to his parent department on 29th
June, 1984.
Aggrieved by the order of repatriation, the respondent filed a snit
in the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipµra, and obtained a temporary in-
E junction. The temporary injunction having been vacated, be filed a writ
petition in the High Court. After the writ petition was admitted and
stay order issued, the respondent withdrew the civil snit.
Two principal contentions were urged before the High Court
were; (1) that the order of repatriation was contrary to Rule 14 of the
F M.P. Civil Services Rules, and (2) that the order of repatriation was
the result of bias and ma/a fide attitude on the part of the Secretary,
Panchayat and Rural Development Department;
The High Court held (1) that the order of repatriation had been
passed in violation of Rule 14 of the Rules, and (2) that although there
G was no material on record to support the allegation of any bias and mala
fide on the part of the Secretary, the order of repatriation was the result
of certain 'wrong complaints' made against him.
The High Court quashed the order of repatriation and directed
the State Government to retain the respondent as officiating Block
H Development Officer so long as persons junior to him were retained.
302
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH 303
Allowing the appeal, it was, A
HELD:(l) Rnle 14 dealt with the question of reversion of a per-
manent Government servant from the officiating higher grade to the
lower grade, and did not apply to a case of deputation from one depart-
ment to another. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding B
that the impugned order of repatriation had been passed in violation of
rule 14 of the Rules. [307D-F]
(2) The allegations of bias and ma/a fides made against the Sec-
retary have remained unsubstantiated. Unless the Court is sure that the
impugned order is really based upon allegations of bias and ma/a fides it
should not proceed to quash administrative orders which are made in C
exigencies of the administration. [310F-G; C-D]
(3) If mere existence of some allegations against an officer, which
on enquiry had been found to be untrue, were to be treated as the basis
for quashing any order of transfer or repatriation made in •espect of
0
any officer then almost every such order of transfer or repatriation
would have to be quashed because there would always be some comp-
laint by some party or other against every officer. [3IOC-D]
(4) The impugned order of repatriation did not on the face of it
show that there was any stigma attached to the respondent by reason of E
the said order. [3IOF]
(5) On the material placed before it, the Court did not find that
the order of repatriation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. [310G]
F
C. Thiraviam Pillai v. State of Kera/a, [1976] 2 S.L.R. 395, refer-
red to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2756
of 1987.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1986 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in C.M.P. No. 742 of 1985
S.N. Khare and T.C. Sharma for the Appellants.
S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents. H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ••
A
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The 1st respondent Ashok Deshmukh
was appointed as a Panchayat and Social Education Organizer in the
Social Welfare Department, Go~ernment of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal
on 16.8.1976. By an order dated 11th March, 1983 he along with 13
B others was posted on deputation as an officiating Block Development
Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant portion of the said
order, posting the Ist respondent on deputation, read as follows:
"GOVERNMENT OF MAD HYA PRADESH
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
c DEPARTMENT(DEVELOPMENT)
Bhopal, dated 11th March, 1983
(
\
ORDER
D
Serial Number 1719/1463/22V-2/82. The following
PaDchayat and Social Educat{oii Organisers are appointed
on the post of officiating Block Development Officer, f
temporarily and on deputation, from the date of taking \i-
charge in the pay scale of Rs.350-25-400-25-500 E.B.-30-
E 650 until further orders and they are posted in Develop-
ment Block shown against their names. This posting on
deputation would be entirely temporary and they would
not be entitled to become semi-permanent or permanent
on this post. If required their services may be transferred
back to their parental department at any time, after notice.
F
s. Name of Panchayat Name of De".elopment
No. and Social Educational block where posted
Organiser
1 2 3
G .1
7. Shri Ashok Deshmukh Kurwai (Vidisha)
In the name and according to the order of Governor
H of Madhya Pradesh.
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 305
Sd/-A.K. Chandra A
Secretary, Govt. of M.P.
Rural Development Department"
The Isl respondent was transferred from the post of Block
Development Officer, Kurwai, in Vidisha district which he was hold-
ing on deputation as aforesaid to the Development Block of Udaipura. B
District Raisen by an order dated A11gust 1, 1983. On 29th June, 1984
the services of the Ist respondent were placed at the disposal of his
parent department by an order made by the Secretary to the Govern-
ment, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Madhya
Pradesh. The said order read thus:
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
c
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (DEVELOPMENT)
BHOPAL, DATED 29TH JUNE, 1984
D
ORDER
No. 6297/1031/22/V-2/Est. 84. The services of Shri Ashok
Deshmukh appointed temporarily on deputation as offi-
ciating Block Development Officer;Development Block-
Udaipura, Distt. Raisen, are returned back to his parental E
department Social Welfare Department because the same
are not required in this department.
In the name and according to the orders of Governor
of Madhya Pradesh.
F
sd/- Illegible
Secretary
Panchayat and Rural Development Department
(Development)"
Aggrieved· by the said order of the State Government sending G
him back to his parent department, where he held his lien, the Ist
respondent filed.a suit in Civil Suit No. 16A of 1984 in the Court of
Civil Judge, Udaipura for permanent injunction restraining the·
Government of Madhya Pradesh from repatriating him to his parent
department and he obtained an order of temporary injunction in that
suit on 15 .11.1984 restraining the State Government ff om relieving H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A him from the post of Block Development Officer at Udaipura and
directing the State Government to allow him to continue as the Block
Development Officer. After the State Government entered appear-
ance in the suit and filed its objections to the order of temporary
injunction, the Civil Judge vacated the order of temporary injunction
B by bis order dated 15.3.1985. Thereafter the Ist respondent filed a writ
petition on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
requesting the High Court to quash the order of repatriation in Miscel-
laneous Petition No. 742 of 1985. After the writ petition was admitted
and a stay order was issued the Ist respondent withdrew the suit filed
by him before the Civil Judge, Udaipura. Thereafter the High Court
beard all the parties and passed an order dated 2.9.1986 quashing the
C order of repatriation dated 29.6.1984 sending back the Ist respondent
to his parent department and directed the State Government to retain
him as officiating Block Development Officer on deputation in the
Panchayat and Rural Development Department so long as persons
junior to the Ist respondent were retained as Block Development
D Officers and there existed a vacancy. The High Court also quashed the
order of the State Government dated 20.5.1985 directing the Ist
respondent to vacate the Government quarter which had been
occupied by him and also the order of suspension which had been
passed in the meanwhile. The High Court also directed the State
Government to pay all the salary due to the Ist respondent as Block
E Development Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the
State Government along with its officers against whom orders were
made by the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave.
In the writ petition two principal contentions were urged on
behalf of the Ist respondent (i) that the order of repatriation was
F contrary to rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), and (ii) the order of repatria-
tion was arbitrary and was the result of bias and ma/a fide attitude on
the part of Smt. Ninnala Buch, Secretary, Panchayat and Rural
Development Department. The High Court held that the order of
repatriation had been passed in violation of rule 14 of the Rules and
G that although there was no material on record to support the allegation
of any bias and mala [ides on the part of Smt. Ninnala Buch the order
of repatriation was the result of certain "wrong complaints" made by
one Panbai who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the state
of Madhya Pradesh.
H Rule 14 of the Rules is as follows:
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 307
"14. Reversion and re-appointment: Permanent
A
Government ser:vants officiating in a higher grade of
service may be reverted to the lower grade of service from
which they were promoted if there are no vacancies in the
former grade of service, and such reversion shall not be
construed to be a reduction in rank:
B
Provided that the order in which such reversion shall
be made will be the reverse of the order in which officiating
promotion was made except when administrative conveni-
ence renders it necessary to revert an officiating Govern-
ment servant otherwise than in accordance with this
proviso:
c
Provided further that on the occurrence of a fresh
vacancy the re-appointment to the higher grade of service
shall ordinarily be in order of relative seniority of the re-
verted Government servant."
D
The above rule deals with the question of reversion of a perma-
nent Government servant from an officiating higher grade of service to
the lower grade of service from which he had been promoted. This rule
in terms does not apply to a case of deputation from one department to
another department. Admittedly the Isl respondent had not been
promoted from the post of Panchayat and Social Education Organiser E
which he held in the parent department to a higher post in the said
department. He had been, in fact, posted on deputation as officiating
Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development
Department. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding that
the impugned order of repatriation had been passed in violation of rule
14 of the Rules. F
It is, however, argued that even in the case of an officer who is
deputed on a temporary basis to a post in another department the
same procedure prescribed in rule 14 of the Rules should be followed.
It is also submitted that there is no specific rule as to the procedure to
be followed in the case of repatriation of an officer deputed from one G
department to another in force in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Reliance is, however, placed in this connection on the decision of this
Court in K.H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra, (1971] Suppl. S.C.R.
118 which was also a case in which the question of repatriation of an
officer, who had been posted on deputation in another department, to
his parent department was under consideration. This Court has H
observed thus at page 123:
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
"The order of reversion simpliciter will not amount to
A
a reduction in rank or a punishment. A Government
servant holding a temporary post and having lien on his
substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in
ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of
service. A person holding a temporary post may draw a
B salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he
is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary can-
not be said to have any penal consequence. Therefore
though the Government has right to revert a Government
servant from the temporary post to a substantive post, the
matter has to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant
factors are to be considered in ascertaining whether the
c order is a genuine one of 'accident of service' in which a
person sent from the substantive post to a temporary post
has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion
against his character or integrity or whether the order
amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment.
D Reversion by itself will not be a stigma. On the other hand,
if there is evidence that the order of reversion is not 'a pure
accident of service' but an order in the nature of punish-
ment, Article 311 be attracted."
· In the above case this Court came to the conclusion that the
E impugned order of repatriation was in fact in the nature of punishment
a?d therefore this Court quashed it.
C. Thiraviam Pillai v. State of Kera/a and others, [1976] 2 S.L.R.
395 was a case relating to repatriation of an officer who was reverted to
his parent department from the post which he held on deputation.
F The High Court of Kerala quashed the order or repatriation since in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it had
been admitted that the order impugned therein had been passed since
there were local complaints about the work in the block and instances
where the officer in question had misused his powers and acted irregu- .,
larly had been cited. The Block Development Officer had to maintain
G very close contact with the public. The post required persons of broad
outlook and service-mindedness. The State Government felt that the
continuance of such an officer would bring down the name of the
Development Department in the eyes of the public and so in the in-
terests of service and the depaitment, Government considered that he
should be reverted back to his parent department. It is thus seen that
H the above averment clearly established that the order of repatriation
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 309
had been passed on account of allegations made against the officer A
concerned and it carried a stigma. Moreover in the above case the
relevani rule provided that persons selected for the post of Block
Development Officers would be treated on deputation· to the Develop-
ment department for a period of five years, the Development Commis-
sioner having the right to revert any of them to his parent department,
if his work proved to be unsatisfactory and to extend the period of B
deputation beyond five years in exceptional cases.
In the case before us no specific period had been mentioned as
the period during which the Ist respondent would be on deputation
either in the order sending him on deputation or in any relevant rule or
Government order. The only question which remains to be considered C
is whether the impugned order is one which attached a stigma to the Ist
resoondent. The allegations made in this behalf are that one Panbai,
MLA referred to above had when the petitioner was at Kurwai made
complaint against the Ist respondent in connection with certain local
elections. The said complaint was after enquiry found to be wrong. On
the date on which the Ist respondent was nqpatriated he was not work- D
ing in Kurwai block which was the block In which Smt. Panbai was
interested. He was working at Udaipura block in a different district
altogether. The respondents had filed counter-affidavit denying that
Smt. Nirrnala Buch, the Secretary to the Government of Madhya
Pradesh had any ill-will against the Ist respondent. The High Court
also came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to E
show that there was any bias or ma/a fide on the part of Smt. Nirrnala
Buch. Yet it proceeded to observe as follows:
:1-
"-1 "Although there is no material on record to support
the allegations of any bias and ma/a fide on the part of Smt.
Nirrnala Buch, the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural F
Development Department, but the wrong complaints of
the said M.L.A. appear to be the only basis for passing the
impugned order of reversiop as well as the order of transfer
of the petitioner who had incurred the displeasure of his
superiors because of the said reports which were found to
be incorrect." G
With respect to the High Court it has to be stated that having
observed that there was no material to support the allegation of any
bias and mala fide on the part of the Secretary to the Government it
committed an error in assuming that the basis of impugned order of
repatriation could only be the displeasure of his superiors which the 1st H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A
respondent had incurred by reason of the wrong complaints of a
Member of the Legislative Assembly. It is significant that the order is
silent about the names of those snperiors who were displeased on
account of the allegations said to have been made by the Member of
the Legislative Assembly. This part of the order of the High Court is
B based on mere surmise. The High Court overlooked that the allega-
tions of bias and ma/a fides are easily made but when it comes to the
question of proof of such allegations, very often there will be no mate-
rial in support of them. This is one such case. If mere existence of some
allegations against an officer which on inquiry had been found to be
untrue is to be treated as the basis for quashing any order of transfer or
repatriation made in respect of any officer then ahnost every such
c order of transfer or repatriation would have to be quashed because
there would always be some complaint by some party or other against
every officer. Unless the court is sure that the impugned order is really
based upon such allegations it should not proceed to quash administra-
tive orders which are made in the exigencies of the administration.
D
The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government
before the High Court also shows that some other officers who had
been posted on deputation like the 1st respondent also had been rever-
ted to their parent department and again some of them had been
posted back as Block Development Officers. Perhaps even in the case
E of the 1st respondent a similar order posting him back as Block
Development Officer would have been passed by the State Govern-
ment had he not filed the suit and then the writ petition making it
difficult for the State Government to take a decision on the question of
again posting him as a Block Development Officer during the
pendency of the proceedings. The impugned order of repatriation
F passed in respect of the 1st respondent does not on the face of it show
that there is any stigma attached to the 1st respondent by reason of the
said order. We are clearly of the opinion that the allegations of bias
and ma/a fides made against Smt. Nirmala Buch have remained unsub-
stantiated. The 1st respondent had no vested right to continue on
deputation as Block Development Officer. On the material placed
G before us we do not find that the order of repatriation is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We, therefore, find it
difficult to agree with the High Court. The order passed by the High
Court is therefore liable to be set aside. It is quite possible that the 1st
respondent may again be sent on deputation as Block Development
Officer. That, however, is within the discretion of the State
H Government.
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH [VENKATARAMIAH, J./ 311
In view of what we have stated above we have not considered it A
necessary to decide the question whether the 1st respondent could
proceed with the writ petition after having withdrawn the suit which he
had filed earlier in the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipura.
In the result we set aside the judgment and order of the High
B
Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. In the
circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
R.S.S. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "deputation"Sign in to search