Rakesh Kumar Deriwal S/O Shri Bhawani Singh Deriwal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while a deputationist appointed for a fixed tenure does not have an indefeasible right to continue until the completion of the period, the curtailment of such tenure cannot be done arbitrarily or capriciously; there must be some rationale. The Court distinguished between 'deputation by way of transfer' and 'deputation by way of appointment', noting that in the latter, repatriation can be ordered on grounds like non-suitability or unsatisfactory work, as observed in *Union of India Vs. S.N. Maity* and *Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel*. The Court found that the Tribunal's finding that there was no material to infer malafide was a finding of fact that did not warrant interference. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's principle that even in cases of appointment on deputation, there is no indefeasible right to continue till the tenure completion, and deputation could be terminated on relevant considerations. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Deriwal, a Senior Intelligence Officer, filed a writ petition challenging his repatriation from a deputation post. He was appointed on deputation for a period of 5 years. The petitioner alleged that his repatriation was malafide, orchestrated to remove him from a sensitive post due to his diligent work against tax evaders, and was based on trivial issues. He relied on Supreme Court judgments to support his claim of an indefeasible right to continue for the full tenure. The respondents argued that the repatriation was based on administrative exigencies and considerations, not malafide, and that the Tribunal had duly considered all submissions. They contended that repatriation, even before the completion of the deputation period, is a right of the employer and not fettered, citing several Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, appointed on deputation for a fixed tenure of 5 years, has an indefeasible right to continue in the post until the completion of the tenure, and if so, can his repatriation before the tenure completion be considered arbitrary or illegal? (Question of law turning on principles of deputation and tenure appointments). 2. Whether the repatriation of the petitioner was actuated by malafide intentions or was based on cogent and strong reasons related to administrative exigencies and suspicious conduct, as alleged by the petitioner and countered by the respondents? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his repatriation was malafide and aimed at aborting his actions against tax evaders, at the instance of influential businessmen. He contended that as he was appointed for a 5-year tenure, he had an indefeasible right to continue, and his repatriation without cogent reasons was illegal. He relied on *Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Anr.*, *I.K. Mansoori Vs. Union of India & Ors.*, and *Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Ors.*. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the Tribunal correctly considered that the repatriation was based on certain considerations and that no material established malafide. They asserted that repatriation from deputation is a right of the employer, not fettered, and can be ordered even before the completion of the deputation period, citing *Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel*, *V. Ramakrishnan*, and *L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.*.