JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN When half way through, the deputation of applicant Mr. Kulbir Krishan, an IPS Officer of Assam Meghalaya Cadre of 1976 Batch, was cut short and he was sought to be repatriated to his parent cadre, he approached this Tribunal seeking to set aside or quash that decision, which by the time present application was filed, had not been communicated to him. Challenge to his repatriation is on variety of grounds but what mainly has been stressed with vehemence by counsel representing him is that it is punitive in nature and would be stigmatic to his career. With a view to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it will be necessary to give facts culminating into filing this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. The applicant is 1976 Batch IPS Officer of Assam Meghalaya Cadre. He was posted in Intelligence Bureau and served there for 18 years. He was posted in hard areas and handled Kashmir Problem for more than 5 years. He served in Srinagar for over 2 years. Appreciating his work, in 1995, he was once again asked to handle the Kashmir Problem. He served in strife torn Northeast for 8 years and handled several militant related problems and issues as IG Law and order. He was awarded the Police (Special Duty) Medal for devotion to duty, Police Medal for meritorious service, several professional awards and commendation certificates from the DIB as well as appreciation from the US FBI for service of a very high order.

3. The Sashastra Seema Bal (for short SSB) is a Central Police Organization headed by the Director General, SSB and under the administrative control of Ministry of Home Affairs. It guards the sensitive Indo-Nepal and indo-Bhutan borders. In April, 2002, the Ministry of Home Affairs came out with an Office Memorandum, wherein the deputation policy of IPS Officers in various organizations is prescribed. The deputation tenure for officer at the level of the I.G is 5 years. The applicant joined SSB as IG (Ops. & Int.) on 12.5.004 on deputation for a period of 5 years. Apart from the applicant, there are 3 IGs in the SSB i.e. IG (Trg), IG (Pers) and I.G(A&P). for smooth functioning of SSB and to make it convenient for the officers to take leave, link officers are designated. IG (P&AW) was made the link officer of IG (O&I), i.e. the applicant. Similarly IG (T&A) was the link officer of IG (Pers). Applicant claims to be honest and disciplined officer who neither used his official position and status for personal gains nor allowed any body to take advantage of their office for their personal gains. Similarly the applicant never interfered with other departments, which are not concerned with his official duty. The attitude of the applicant is stated to have created ill will in the minds of his colleagues and higher officers.

4. On 1.8.2004, Mr. Himanshu Kumar, took over as DG, SSB. In the month of December, 2004 applicant fell seriously ill and had to be admitted to the Hospital. He was advised tests to be conducted at regular intervals. It is the case of the applicant that certain funds are normally sacrosanct which are related to national security and integrity of the Organization, which were under his control. These were sought to be mis-utilised by certain officers at the superior level in SSB for purpose other than for which it were meant for. The applicant is stated to have suggested that these be utilized for the purpose for which they are meant. This invited displeasure of higher ups.

5. On 29.6.2005, D.G, SSB, honoured the applicant with commendation certificate for his exceptional professional competence and devotion to duty. Respondents never got an opportunity to find fault with the performance of the applicant, which is reflected from the service record and commendation certificates received by him. In the respondent organization every Monday a review meeting is convened which is presided over by the D.G. and normally called as Monday meeting. After the meeting was over and the minutes were circulated after some days, applicant was shocked to see in the minutes of the weekly meeting held on 4.7.2005, lot of remarks against him. It is the case of the applicant that no such remarks were ever made against the applicant in the said meeting nor he was adversely commented upon in the meeting. Further while marking copies, neither seniority nor alphabetical order was followed. Applicant protested in writing. On one hand the then DG Mr. Himanshu kumar conferred upon applicant commendation certificate and on the other hand he tried to cook up allegations to somehow repatriate him. The conduct of Mr. Himanshu Kumar is stated to be beyond human comprehension. The remarks above mentioned, however, were later on withdrawn by corrigendum-dated 15.7.2005, because of the strong protest from the applicant.

6. Due to tremendous stress and strain, applicant fell sick. On 20.7.2005 he applied for half days casual leave and the same was granted. The applicant never availed unnecessary medical leave and his earned leave lapsed several times. On 1.8.2005 the applicant was examined by visiting Ophthalmologist of SSB who advised him to undergo additional tests. Doctor advised him to take rest, as his blood pressure was high. Thereafter, the applicant was again forced to avail casual level on 4.8.2005, as his health was not improving. The Doctor advised him to take rest for some time. When nothing was found against him officially, he then tried to provoke him by transferring his personal staff like cook etc. The dispatch rider attached to his office was also withdrawn. In gross violation of the transfer policy the DG transferred the Constable Cook posted with IG (O&I) for less than a year, back to the same station where he had served for over 9 years and where the only deployment was a guard of 2 NCOs and 8 constables. This order was passed on 27.5.2005 without even the courtesy of making a copy to IG (O&I).

7. It is further the case of the applicant that such conduct of then DG was due to applicant being an honest and disciplined member of the police force. Infact, it was felt by certain officers including the then DG that applicant is trying to cross them which is likely to result in embarrasing position to them, touching upon the mis-utilisation of the funds, position in the organization etc. As the health of the applicant did not improve and also as per the advice of the Doctor on 8.5.2005, he applied for leave for 1 month. The then Director General, without applying his mind and also to harass the applicant sent it back with a remark for 7 days only. Reason given for denying the leave, as requested, was that the link officer attached to the applicant was on leave. The Link Officer attached to the applicant was not on leave. The link officer, as mentioned in note of D.G. is not attached to applicant. The leave was granted to other officers for several days / months without any proper cause. The applicant has made mention of some such instances in the pleadings.

8. On 5.9.2005, PS of applicant booked 3 rooms in Officers Mess claiming that it was on instructions of applicant without even informing him. Applicant got timely information, as the concerned office in-charge of the Mess called him up and reconfirmed the booking to which he answered in negative. This was another attempt to frame the applicant and to use it to repatriate him. In addition to this, there was extensive surveillance against him. In September, 2005, applicant requested for grant of 35 days commuted leave w.e.f. 8.8.2005 to 11.9.2005 on medical grounds. Again on 12.9.2005, he submitted an application for extension of two weeks leave w.e.f. 12.9.2005 to 29.9.2005. In the month of September, 2006, the SSB wrote to the MHA seeking clarification whether a second medical examination could be held for IPS Officers governed by All India Service Rules. A memo was issued to subordinate staff on 22.9.2005 for clarification on entries made in log book of official car and attempt was made by pressuring his office staff to incriminate him. On 26.9.2005, applicant submitted another application for extension of two weeks leave w.e.f. 26.9.2005 to 7.10.2005. On 29.9.2005 the Director General decided to go for medical re-examination, without waiting for clarification, with a view to humiliate the applicant even if it meant manipulating events. On 2.10.2005, the applicant replied to the communication-dated 29.9.2005, seeking a clarification as to under which provision a medical re-examination can be sought. He also protested against the treatment meted out to him. Since allopathic medicines and physiotherapy were not giving much relief to the applicant, he was compelled to change the branch of medicine and started taking Unani treatment. The said treatment finally gave him relief. Since medical certificate was for a Unani Senior Medical Officer of GHS, the Medical re-examination could not be held by RMLH Hospital, which is an Allopathic Hospital. On 10.10.2005, Himanshu Kumar, the then D.G. SSB, wrote to applicant that his request for leave was in piece meal and is not supported with medical documents. He invited the applicants attention that leave of the officers is governed by Rule 3 of All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955. On 17.10.2005, the respondent called the cook, Joginder Singh to HQ, Delhi on government expense to complain against the applicant. However, it was dropped, as expected result was not received. The efforts to cook up fake charges against the applicant went futile, as there was no harassment or misuse.

9. Before 7 days of his retirement i.e. 24.10.2005, Himanshu Kumar, the then DG wrote to the concerned authority for repatriation of applicant. As per the information of the applicant, the Ministry of Home Affairs was not convinced with the repatriation recommendation of the then DG and the same was kept pending. MHA was fully aware of the applicants reputation as an honest and dedicated officer. On 7.11.2005, applicant rejoined duty after he was fully recovered from the sickness. His application for leave was sanctioned in December,2005 but partially for medical and partly for earned leave, which was against the rules. On 6.2.2006, Mr. Tilak Kak, took over as new Director General of SSB. On 18.4.2006, D.G, SSB wrote a DO letter No.14/SSB/A2/2004(3)-166 to MHA asking about applicants premature repatriation. In may 2006, D.G, SSB, who wrote to MHA for applicants repatriation, recommended his name for presidents Police Medal for distinguished services. On 20.6.2006, Rajiv Aggarwal, Joint Secretary, MHA wrote to Tilak Kak, D.G, SSB, to give his views on conduct and behaviour of the applicant. On 3.8.2006, D.G., SSB, Tilak Kak, gave his comments to the MHA. While agreeing with the view taken by Mr. Himanshu Kumar, the then DG, Mr. Tilak Kak said that unhealthy atmosphere prevailed between applicant and Sh. Yashwant Malhotra, IG (Pers.) and recommended that in order to maintain discipline in the organization both should be shifted out of SSB. D.G. himself issued an order to transfer Mr.Yashwant Malhotra to Frontier Headquarters, Patna. Mr. Malhotra now stands transferred to Patna. There is reference in the letter to certain misdeeds by Mr. Malhotra, which is already subject matter of litigation before the High Court of Delhi. As regards applicant, it is mentioned that he is competent in his work and is capable. Copy of the letter-dated 3.8.2006 has been annexed as Annexure A7.

10. The case of the applicant is that there never rose any occasion for the applicant to create unpleasant situation with any of his colleagues. One of the subordinate staff of the applicant initiated a writ proceeding against Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, alleging some irregularities regarding medical reimbursement in respect of his mother. Mr. Malhotra carries a feeling that the case was initiated at the behest of the applicant even though applicant was not involved in the said proceeding. This doubt created some ill will in the mind of Mr. Malhotra towards applicant. Mr. Malhotra sought an explanation regarding some official work from the applicant. The D.G. SSB ruled that as they are of same rank, the explanation can be given only to higher officials if the same is asked for. Apart from this, there was not even a single occasion where both the officers had any unpleasant meeting or communication. On 8.8.2006, D.G. SSB gave commendation letter to the applicant for his exceptional professional competence and devotion to duty. Despite the professional competence and capability of the applicant in his work, it is the case of the applicant that some officers in the Ministry of Home Affairs, including in other police organizations who are close to then DG Himanshu Kumar and Mr. Malhotra, have hastened a decision to repatriate him to his parent cadre. A decision has been taken but it is yet to be communicated to him. Apprehending the said communication, which was likely to be handed over in a day or two, he approached this Tribunal, calling in question any such action or order that may result into repatriating him to his parent cadre.

11. On the facts as narrated above, it is the case of the applicant that deputation of an officer of the level of applicant is governed by the OM dated April, 2000 wherein a fixed period of 5 years is prescribed. He has completed only 2 years, 8 months in SSB and, therefore, the recommendation of the DG, SSB is against the policy laid down by the Government of India. It is also case of the applicant that repatriation of applicant is based on some trivial issue viz. unpleasant atmosphere due to some alleged dispute between applicant and his colleague, which cannot be a justified cause to repatriate him and that premature repatriation is vindictive in nature and stigmatic to his career. It is also case of the applicant that once Mr. Yashwant Malhotra has been transferred, now there will be no occasion or difference between them and, therefore too, repatriation of the applicant is un-called for.

12. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and hotly contested the cause of the applicant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that claim of the applicant that the decision of repatriation to parent cadre, has not been communicated to him, is not sustainable because the SSB had deputed a senior officer to his residence to deliver the order of repatriation on him on 11.9.2006 and the order was duly delivered to the applicant who accepted the envelope containing the order and opened it and read out its contents but returned the order to the emissary. The conduct of the applicant in refusing to accept government communication amounts to an act of indiscipline and unbecoming conduct on the part of a senior IPS Officer. The first respondent has issued order of repatriation on 11.9.2006 (Annexure B). SSB had also issued order of repatriation of applicant w.e.f. 11.9.2006 (AN) (Annexure C). The applicant had already been relieved w.e.f. 11.9.2006 with the direction to report back to his parent cadre. While dealing with case of applicant on tenure policy relating to IPS Officers, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in April, 2000, prescribing a normal tenure of 5 years for officers at IG level, it is averred that the Policy on the deputation tenure cannot be read in isolation because in the same Tenure Policy it has been provided in para 10 that the prescribed deputation tenure will not confer any right on the offices to remain on Central deputation and the Central Government reserves the right to revert such officers to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reason. So, the case of the applicant would be squarely covered under this clause of the tenure policy.

13. In so far as plea of applicant with regard to mis-utilisation of funds by certain officers is concerned, it is stated in the written statement that applicant never reported to the higher authorities about the pressure from any quarter for misutilization of the funds for purposes other than for which they were meant and the applicant himself had kept in his custody concerned records relating to the funds. The applicant has not named anybody who pressurized him to use the funds for other purposes. The allegations are, therefore, after thought just to impute motive on the part of his superiors. The facts with regard to applicant getting commendation certificates for the exceptional professional competence and devotion to duty are admitted.

14. It is averred that it was the erstwhile DG, SSB, namely Mr. Himanshu Kumar, IPS (UP: 69), who first sought the repatriation of the applicant to his cadre in October, 2005 citing direct disobedience on the part of the applicant, who had absented himself unauthorizedly from office. The DG had opined that the continuance of the applicant in SSB was not desirable as his long and deliberate absence from work was not only affecting the functioning of the branches under his supervision but also creating an unhealthy atmosphere at the Force Headquarters with its repercussions in the whole rank and file of the Organization. Thereafter, Mr. Himanshu Kumar, DG retired on 31.10.2005. Then, another DG namely Mr. J.K. Sinha, IPS (BH:69) took over as head of SSB and whose views were also sought in the matter. He endorsed the views given by his predecessor, Mr. Himanshu Kumar. Later in February, 2006 yet another new DG, namely Mr. Tilak Kak, IPS (UP:71), took over as DG, SSB. It was thought that before deciding about the repatriation of applicant, the views of the new DG, SSB may also be obtained. Accordingly, his views were obtained. Mr. Tilak Kak, DG, SSB mentioned that when he took over as Chief of the Organization, he found that there was an unhealthy atmosphere prevailing in the Force. The applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, IG (Pers), alleged things against each other and as a result of which an unhealthy atmosphere percolated down the line in the organization. His efforts to patch up the differences between the two officers failed. He concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Organization to shift both the officers out of the organization and their replacements provided in order to maintain discipline in the Organization. In this context, Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, IPS (BH:75) has also been repatriated to his parent cadre w.e.f same date on which applicant was repatriated. With regard to the applicant referring to the minutes of Monday Review meeting held in SSB on 4.7.2005, it is stated that the applicant is deliberately referring to the internal administrative communication, which basically has no relevance with the present case, perhaps with a view to strengthen his case. The applicant raised certain objections to the minutes of the said Monday Meeting, which were, however, duly rectified by the Organization under intimation to him. These are mere internal administrative matters of the organization and have no link with the present case of the applicant.

15. With regard to the transfer of personal staff like Cook and Dispatch Rider of applicant, it is stated that the applicant has no right to retain with him a particular individual for duties. The Constable / Cook, namely Mr. Joginder Singh was transferred from the residence of the applicant and in whose place a substitute namely Mr. Chaman Lal was posted. If the intention of the organization was to provoke / harass the applicant, a substitute would not have been posted. Applicant certainly enjoys certain privileges but cannot claim his right with respect to posting of a particular individual of his choice. He is deliberately trying to raise baseless issues to further his interests and to twist the facts to his advantage. In so far as the claim of applicant that due to tremendous stress and strain, he fell ill and he was forced to avail leave during July-August, 2005 is concerned, it is stated that the applicant was sanctioned leave only for 7 days for the reason that the link officer of the applicant was also on leave. The reasons with regard to other officers as to why they were granted leave, have been mentioned in the written statement. Other allegations made in the application, which may tend to show bias against the applicant, have also been strongly refuted.

16. It is then averred that the action initiated by Ex-DG Mr. Himanshu Kumar was in the official capacity. None of his action was taken in his personal or private capacity. Applicant should not be given liberty to implead Mr. Himanshu Kumar, who has since retired from service, as a party in the O.A. As per the quoted IPS Tenure Policy, there is no need for mentioning the reasons for repatriation in the order as the Central Government reserves the right to revert officers to their parent cadre at any time without assigning any reason as per para 10 of IPS Tenure Policy. The repatriation of the applicant is not at all punitive and stigmatic as claimed by him. There is no question of stigma attached to his repatriation. Mr. Yashwant Malhotra who was alleged to be in war of words with the applicant has already been repatriated to his parent cadre, i.e Bihar. It is then pleaded that it is discretion of the DG to give recommendation with regard to continuance of an officer under his command and control. SSB is a Border Guarding force and an officer with questionable conduct cannot be retained in force. The acts of indiscipline in a Central Para Military Force cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. The alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant is not an isolated incident. Earlier in October 2000, he had been repatriated from IB in similar circumstances. Surely there is something amiss with the conduct of the applicant. As the continuance of the applicant in the CPMF was not considered in the interest of the health of the organization, it was decided with the approval of competent authority that he should be repatriated.

17. Applicant has filed rejoinder wherein he has averred that Mr. J.K.Sinha had not taken over from Mr. Himanshu Kumar. It was Mr. Vijay Shanker who took over from Mr. Himanshu Kumar. Mr. J.K. Sinha was holding ad hoc charge as DG, SSB for a very short time and visited SSB on rare occasions because his regular charge as DG, CRPF kept him preoccupied. It is further stated that it is not known on what basis he endorsed the views of Mr. Himanshu Kumar but to do so on the fourth working day after joining the SSB is not only unfair to the applicant but also shows malafide abuse of power. Endorsement by Mr. J.K.Sinha was for extraneous considerations. While officiating as DG, SSB Mr. J.K. Sinha had no occasion to interact with the applicant on one to one basis. No written warning or advisory was ever given to the applicant by any of the DGs. Different officers have come up with different reasons to justify the repatriation of the applicant. The shifting stand shows the extent of prejudice and malice. It is then pleaded that decision of Ministry of Home Affairs to repatriate the applicant appears to be based on the D.O letter dated 3rd August, 2006 (Annexure A-7). In paragraph 5 of this letter, DG, SSB has stated that Regarding professional competence and capability of Shri Kulbir Krishan, I have found him to be competent in his work. This shows that his recommendation for repatriation is not for professional reasons but by way of punishment for applicants alleged personal differences with Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. No personal differences existed between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra and no ground subsisted for his repatriation. The decision to repatriate applicant is for extraneous consideration and is punitive in nature, so Article 311 (2) would come into play and as such applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The Honble Supreme Court has held It is now well settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct, it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged, to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the court holds that the order though in form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the court would not be debarred merely because of the form of the order in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee. The D.G. SSB further stated in paragraph 3 that Mr. Rajesh Kak, AFO (Tech) had filed a PIL in Dehi High Court. In that petition Mr. Rajesh Kak had alleged that Mr. Yashwant Malhotra had falsely shown his mother as dependent upon him and claimed a whopping sum of Rs.10,06,666/- as medical reimbursement for her from SSB. Following this writ petition, Mr. Yashwant Malhotra refunded this entire amount to SSB in March, 2006. Case is presently being heard by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court. Mr. Rajesh Kak was working in one of the branches under the applicant. He had not only filed this PIL but also another Writ Petition wherein he had named two other Inspector Generals and Mr. Himanshu Kumar, Ex DG, SSB for misusing nearly Rs.30 lacs of jawans money from the Central Welfare Fund to build a bar and renovate the officers mess at Ghittorni, New Delhi. The case is under consideration of the Honble Delhi high Court. Mr. Yashwant Malhotra and others were desperate to get these writ petitions withdrawn and for this purpose, he was trying to victimize and pressurize Mr. Rajesh Kak. When all his efforts did not succeed, Mr. Yashwant Malhotra wanted to start disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rajesh Kak on concocted charges. Applicant made it abundantly clear that he would not be a party to false complaints and proceedings. It has also been averred that Director General and Inspector General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong, vide letter dated 25.9.2006 addressed to Smti R.V.Suchiang, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, Shillong, has mentioned that applicant was placed at the disposal of the Government of India for appointment as Inspector General in SSB on deputation for a period of 5 years and the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, conveyed approval of the Central Government to the repatriation of the applicant to his parent cadre and that he stood relieved from the Director General, SSB, New Delhi, w.e.f. 11.9.2006. It is further stated that no vacant post of Additional Director General of Police was available in the State. The applicant was expected to be back only in January 2009. The applicant also reiterated contentions raised in the application and refuted the averments made in the reply filed by the 1st respondent.

18. We have heard Mr. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate, representing the applicant and Mr. A.K.Bhadwaj, representing the respondents and with their assistance examined the records of the case.

19. Mr. Khurana contends that genesis of the impugned action or order of the respondents lay in the alleged differences between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra and once Mr. Malhotra has himself made a request vide letter dated 28.2.2006 for his repatriation to his parent cadre and when he has actually been repatriated, very basis of repatriation of the applicant would no more exist and, therefore, the action to repatriate the applicant is bad in law. There does not appear to be any merit in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel. Whereas, it may be true that genesis of order repatriating the applicant to his parent cadre may be a wordy duel between the applicant and Mr. Malhotra but it is not a case where Mr. Malhotra has not been transferred. He too has been repatriated for the same reason for which repatriation of applicant has been ordered. Infighting between two officers had created an unhealthy atmosphere, which had percolated down the lines in the organization. Retention of one and repatriation of other would have raised many eyebrows in the organization. It is obvious that one-sided action would have been treated as favouritism to one and punishment to other. The decision to repatriate both, who indulged in creating unhealthy atmosphere, appears to be justified.

20. The learned counsel for the applicant then contends that the order repatriating the applicant is malafide and that being so the same needs to be set aside or quashed on that ground alone. Malafide and fraud vitiates everything, thus contends learned counsel. Whereas we may agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel that malafide vitiates everything, it will be very difficult to hold, on facts and circumstances of this case, that the action taken against the applicant is actuated on account of malafides. Number of instances have been cited in the application tending to show bias of Mr. Himanshu Kumar and others in bringing about repatriation of the applicant, but what has been urged during the course of arguments is that the malafides are writ large on the face of record, when it is appreciated that the order dated 11.9.2006 issued by the Home Ministry was faxed in the office of Director General, SSB on same day and the applicant stood relieved by another order of the even date. In normal course, it is factually impossible to relieve a high ranking officer like applicant same day, as even if the order is issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, various formalities relating to the handing over of charge etc. have to be completed. The order was passed and conveyed in post haste and that alone would show malafides. We find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel. Repatriation of the applicant was contemplated long before actual order dated 11.9.2006 came to be passed. It may be recalled that Mr. Himanshu Kumar had sought repatriation of the applicant in October, 2005. The reason cited by him for repatriating the applicant to his parent cadre was his unauthorized absence from office. It was mentioned by him that applicants absence from work was not only affecting functioning of the Branches under his supervision but also creating unhealthy atmosphere at the Force Headquarters with repercussions in whole rank and file of the Organization. Mr. Himansu Kumar, DG retired on 31.10.2005. Mr. J.K. Sinha then took over as Head of SSB. His views were sought in the matter. He endorsed the view given by his predecessor Mr. Himanshu Kumar. Later on in February, 2006, yet another DG namely Mr. Tilak kak took over as DG, SSB. Before taking decision with regard to the repatriation of the applicant, his views were also sought. Mr. Tilak Kak mentioned that when he took over as Chief of the Organization, he found that there was unhealthy atmosphere prevailing in the Force. The applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra IG (Pers) alleged things against each other and as a result of which an unhealthy atmosphere percolated down the line in the organization. His efforts to patch up the differences between the two officers failed. It is thus not a case where the decision to repatriate the applicant has been taken in post haste as matter was initiated in October, 2005 and culminated on 11.9.2006. No argument, we may reiterate, based upon other allegations made in the application tending to prove malafide, has been raised during the course of arguments. There appears to be a reason for the same. Two successors of Himanshu Kumar had concurred with views of his predecessor. Malafides by and large have been alleged against Mr. Himanshu Kumar but reiteration of his views by two successive heads of the organization would completely knock out the plea of bias alleged against Mr. Himanshu Kumar.

21. Learned counsel for applicant then contends that reasons for repatriation of the applicant are fake. With a view to make aforesaid argument good, learned counsel contends that while issuing impugned order, Government relied upon letter dated 3.8.2006 where the DG has referred to unhealthy atmosphere prevailing in the Force and there was difference between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, which he tried to patch up. The counsel contends that this reason too, to say the least, is frivolous. There was nothing on record to suggest that there was any unhealthy atmosphere. The counsel refers to averments made at page 19 of application which read as under: In order to apprise this Honble Court about the correct version of the sequence of events it is submitted that there never arose any occasion for the applicant to create unpleasant situation with any of his colleagues. One of the subordinate staffs of the applicant initiated a Writ proceeding against Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, alleging some irregularities regarding medical reimbursement in respect of his mother. Mr. Malhotra carries a feeling that the case was initiated at the behest of the applicant. But, the applicant was in any way not involved in the above proceeding. This doubt created some ill will in the minds of Mr. Malhotra towards the applicant. Mr.Malhotra sought some explanation regarding some official work from the applicant. The D.G., SSB ruled that as they are of same rank, the explanation can be given only to higher officials if the same is asked for. Apart from this there was not even a single occasion where both the officers had any unpleasant meeting or communication. Counsel pleads that the averments in the application reproduced above, have gone uncontroverted and, therefore, there was no ill will between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra nor there was any infighting between the two and therefore the very basis of the order is knocked out. This contention, we are afraid, is also equally devoid of merit. If the averments reproduced above are not contoverted, it may amount to admission, but facts reproduced alone, however, show that there was indeed bad blood prevailing between applicant and Mr. Malhotra. It is the case of the applicant himself that Mr. Malhotra carried a feeling that the litigation was initiated at his behest and the same had created ill will in the mind of Mr. Malhotra towards applicant. Mr. Malhotra then had sought explanation regarding some official work from the applicant but the DG SSB opined that since both the officers are of the same rank, explanation could be given to the higher officer only, if same was asked for. If the averments made at page 19 of application have not been refuted, at the most it may indicate that if bad relations existed between the applicant and Mr. Malhotra, applicant was not at fault but nonetheless the relations between two were far from cordial. That being so, it cannot possibly be urged that the ground on which the applicant has been repatriated, is fake.

22. The next contention of the learned counsel is that when the tenure of a deputationist is specified in the deputation policy, applicant has indefeasible right to hold the said post for complete 5 years and the period cannot be curtailed, except on grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. Counsel contends that it is nowhere the case of the respondents that applicant was found unsuitable for the job or was guilty of unsatisfactory performance and, that being so, the period of deputation of the applicant could not be cut short for any unauthorized reason. In support of this contention learned counsel relied upon the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and Another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Others, (2005) 8 SCC 394. In the context of facts and circumstances of the present case, this argument too appears to have no merit. The deputation in the present case is governed by Policy, set out in O.M. of April, 2000. Said policy is available on record as Annexure A-1. It recites that in terms of the provisions of Article 312 of the Constitution, the Indian Police Service is an All India Service common to the Union and the States. Rule 6 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules 1954 provides for deputation of IPS officers under the Central Government or another State Government or autonomous body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Govrnment or an international organization etc. Every State cadre of the service provides for a central deputation quota, which in turn requires additional recruitment to be made to the service to provide for trained and experienced members to serve on posts in the Central Government. Accordingly, utilization of the Central deputation quota of different State cadres is an important factor governing the scale at which officers are borrowed from the various State cadres of the service. It is clearly mentioned therein that no posts so filled by a member of IPS on tenure deputation can be deemed to be a cadre post of that service. Similarly, no individual member of IPS can claim any right to a post for appointment under the Government of India or the State Government. The normal deputation tenure at different levels in the Central Government has been prescribed. In the case of the Inspector General, the normal deputation tenure is 5 years.

23. The applicant, it appears from the record made available to us, was on deputation with the Intelligence Bureau for a long time. He joined I.B. as ADC in August, 1984. He proceeded on deputation to MEA in April, 1992 and reverted to IB in December, 1994. He was promoted as Deputy Director in January, 1995 and as JD in September 1998. He continued in the Bureau beyond his normal tenure. The record reflects that applicant was relieved from I.B. in 2000. It appears that the applicant could come again on deputation after cooling off period as provided in para 7 of the Annexure A-1. It is apparent that after the cooling off period, applicant came on deputation with SSB on 12.5.2004. Para 10 of the Policy, Annexure A-1, reads as under: The deputation tenure as prescribed in the preceding paragraphs will not confer any right on the officers to remain on Central deputation. The Central Government reserves the right to revert such officers to their parent cadres at any time without assigning any reasons. Thus, from the deputation policy, relevant paras whereof have been cited above, it is apparent that even though normal period of deputation of an officer of the rank of the applicant may be 5 years, but the Central Government has a right to revert an officer to his parent cadre without assigning any reason. This Tribunal, while dealing with same very policy in the context of para 10 reproduced above, in O.A.No.1729 of 2006 decided on 6.3.2007 in Sunil Krishna Vs. Union of India & Others, held that the tenure deputation set out in paragraph 6 of the O.M. is subject to para 10 wherein, the Central Government has reserved right to revert deputationist officers to their parent cadre, at any time without assigning any reason. Thus, it is in this context that the contention of learned counsel for applicant needs to be appreciated. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that once the applicant derives right to continue on a normal deputation for a period of 5 years on the basis of policy, Annexure A-1, the said normal period is subject to discretion of the Central Government to curtail the same without assigning any reason, according to the same very policy. In so far as judgment of the Honble Supreme in the case of V. Ramakrishnan (supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is concerned, it may be seen that it deals with only providing of a period of deputation, without there being any right to curtail it without assigning any reason. That apart, the Supreme Court has clearly held that even if the tenure of a deputation is specified, despite this, a deputationist has no indefeasible right to hold the said post. Ordinarily period of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. (emphasis supplied). The deputationist, as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, has no indefeasible right to hold the post but ordinarily, it should not be curtailed. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court would apply where it is a straight case of providing a period of deputation without there being any right with the Government to curtail it. It is for this precise reason, it appears, that the word ordinarily has been used. Assuming that the law laid down by the Honble Supreme court would apply even if there is no right with the Government to curtail the period of deputation, as per the discretion without any reason, even then it may not be correct to argue that the term of deputation can be curtailed only where deputationist is unsuitable or has unsatisfactory performance, as the word unsuitability or unsatisfactory are prefixed with the words on such just grounds. The grounds for cutting short the deputation period like unsuitable and unsatisfactory performance are not exhaustive. The same have been stated only by way of illustration as is clearly mentioned in the decision. The contention of learned counsel that the period of deputation of applicant could be curtailed only on the ground of his being unsuitable or having unsatisfactory performance is untenable and has to be repelled.

24. The contentions raised by Mr. Khurana, as mentioned hereinbefore, have no doubt been pressed during the course of argument but what has been strenuously, seriously and emphatically urged is that order repatriating the applicant to his parent cadre is stigmatic. The form of order is not conducive and what relevant is plain reason for repatriation and not strategy of the innocuous order, thus contends the learned counsel. The order is indeed innocuous and it is for that precise reason it is contended that the Court should lift the veil and find the plain reason for repatriation. For the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgement of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1459/2000, J.P. Verma, IPS Vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 16.11.2000, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Other Vs. J.P. Verma & Another, 98 (2002) Delhi Law times 510 (DB).

25. Before we may, however, analyse the contention of learned counsel in the light of the judicial precedents cited by the learned counsel, it will be appropriate to mention that in service jurisprudence, deputation is treated to be an assignment of an employee of one department or cadre to another department or cadre. The deputation is resorted to in public interest to meet exigencies of public service. It is a tripartite agreement. It is based upon consent and voluntary decision of the principal employer to lend the service of his employee, which decision has to be accepted by the borrowing department/employer. It also involves consent of the employee. Deputation subsists so long as parties to tripartite agreement adhere to the same. The moment this tripartite agreement is repudiated, the employee would have no legally enforceable right to continue upto the agreed period of his deputation.

26. The Honble Supreme Court in Ratilal B. Soni & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 1990 (Supp) SCC, 243, has held that a deputationist can be reverted to his parent cadre at any time, who would have no right to be absorbed on the post of deputation. In Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India & Another, AIR 2000 SC 2076, the Supreme Court has held that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. A Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (1) SLR 629, after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex court in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) and Ratilal B. Soni & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Others (supra), and Rameshwer Parshad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, 1999 (5) SLR 203 (SC), has held that a deputationist would have no vested right to continue in the borrowing department even till the completion of the stipulated period of deputation. It is a tripartite contract and can be continued only if all the parties like it to continue.

27. A Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A.No.1729/06 in the matter of Sunil Krishna Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) while dealing with the case of an IPS Officer, in the context of OM of April, 2000 (supra) and paragraph 10 thereof, has held that it could be seen that the tenure of deputation as set out in paragraph-6 of the OM is subject to para 10 wherein the Central Government reserves the right to revert such officers to their parent cadres at any time without assigning any reason. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. J.P. Verma & Another (supra) did not take a view different than what has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court as also by this Tribunal in the judicial precedents mentioned above. It is, however, true that in said judgments it has also been held that when the order repatriating a deputationist to his parent cadre is penal and stigmatic in nature, then the Court can always lift the veil to find out if the order of repatriation is penal and stigmatic in nature and if it is found so, it shall not be permissible to repatriate a deputationist without holding an enquiry. The facts of the case aforesaid would reveal that Mr. J.P. Verma, an IPS officer was sent on deputation as Additional Director General of Police for appointment in CRPF. He was a Member of the Indian Police Service and allotted the cadre of State of Orissa. He was appointed on deputation basis as ADGP in CRPF by order dated 2.26.1998 until further orders. He was sponsored for the post of Director General (Investigation) in the National Human Rights Commission by Union of India. On 13th June, 2000, the Secretary General of NHRC wrote to the Government of India a letter in the following terms: The Chairperson has directed me to place on record the fact that when we (I and Shri D.K. Karthikeyan) contacted Shri M.K.Shukla and Shri J.P. Verma (applicant), we were surprised to find that both the officers were only keen to find out about the perquisites attached to the office of the Director General (Investigation), NHRC-One officer wanted to know whether he can travel as he likes or whether he will have to seek permission from the Chairperson; another officer indicated the number off constables/orderlies a DG (Police) is entitled to and wanted to know whether he will be provided the same number (The obvious answer was no). Both the officers expressed their disinclination to come and meet the Chairperson after being told about the availability or otherwise of the kind of perks they were looking for in the Commission. The Chairperson, NHRC was appraised of this matter and he has directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Home Ministry to highlight the lopsided priorities of these very senior officers who are waiting to serve the nation in the rank of Director General of Police. It was the case of Mr. J.P. Verma that the order of repatriation was passed in terms whereof the Union of India had repatriated him to his parent cadre by order dated 3.8.2000 and the same day Original Application was filed in the Tribunal which was allowed. After the order of repatriation was passed, a memorandum was issued to Mr. J.P. Verma by the Union of India to explain within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him whereupon Mr. J.P. Verma prayed for 30 days further time to file reply, which was granted. It was urged before the Honble Supreme Court on behalf of the Union of India that Tribunal had committed serious error in passing the impugned order in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the deputationist cannot be said to have any legal right to continue on deputation. It was also argued that Tribunal committed illegality while holding that even in the case of this nature the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with although by reason of the order impugned in the Original Application, Mr. J.P. Verma did not suffer any loss of emolument, status nor by reason thereof suffered any stigma or penalty. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of Mr. J.P. Verma that the purported letter of the National Human Rights Commission was the foundation for passing the order dated 3rd August, 2000 in terms whereof Mr. J.P. Verma was sought to be repatriated on extraneous consideration. It was further urged that the order of repatriation, having regard to the nature of service of Mr. J.P. Verma, which is governed by All India Services Act, 1951, could be passed only for valid reasons. A non-speaking order cannot be a ground not to lift the veil inasmuch as the Court is entitled to, in a given situation, to delve deep into the matter for the purpose of finding out the actual reasons therefore. The Court considered as to whether the letter dated 13.6.2000 issued by the National Human Rights Commission was the foundation for passing the impugned order. On the strength of pleadings of the parties, a firm finding came to be recorded that it is letter of National Human Rights Commission, which was the foundation and not the motive of passing the order dated 3.8.2000. We may further add that based upon allegations made against Mr. J.P. Verma, a memorandum was issued to him to explain within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Honble Supreme Court examined as to whether the real reason for repatriating Mr. J.P. Verma would be stigmatic to his career. In that context the Honble Supreme Court relied upon observations made in its earlier decision in K.H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 1 SCC, 792, which read as follows: 17. The order of reversion simplicitor will not amount to 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 salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary cannot be said to have any penal consequence. Therefore though the government has right to revert a Government servant from the temporary post to substantive post, the matter has to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors are to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of accident of service in which a person sent from the substantive post to a temporary job 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. 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 punishment, Article 311 will be attracted. The observations extracted above would make a clear distinction between an order passed as a result of accident of service or an outcome of aspersion against character of an officer. The Apex Court further relied upon its earlier decisions and held that court can always lift the veil and find the real reason of order.

28. With a view to find out the real reason behind decision to repatriate the applicant, we had called for original records which indeed have been produced by the respondents and we have closely examined the same.

29. It appears that the discussion with regard to repatriation of the applicant commenced when DG, SSB brought to notice of Ministry of Home Affairs the behaviour on the part of the applicant. The report to MHA, pertaining to the behaviour of the applicant was bringing about political influence in order to revoke the posting order of one lower staff who was un-authorizedly attached with the applicant at his residence. It was alleged that when the said lower staff had complained of ill treatment by the officer, the former was posted out of Delhi. Following this development, applicant went on leave. The applicant requested for casual leave, which was permitted. However, from 8.8.2005 he stopped attending office and thereafter applied for 30 days earned leave without filling in prescribed application form. When the SSB asked him to submit medical certificate for the period of leave applied, he wrote back stating that there was no rule to submit medical certificate. He applied for extension of leave for two weeks on medical grounds, not supported by medical certificate. SSB asked the applicant to appear for second medical opinion on which he wrote back stating that there was no rule / provision under which second opinion could be sought for proceeding on medical leave. This was said to be a case of direct disobedience of the orders of the Department and for that reason DG, SSB mentioned that continuation of the officer in SSB was not desirable as it will create an unhealthy atmosphere at the Force Headquarters which may encourage indiscipline and insubordination in the rank and file of the Organization. The office note was put for giving views on the allegations made by DG, SSB against the applicant on 25.11.2005. Meanwhile, it appears that new DG, SSB had taken over and vide Note dated 28.11.2005, view of present D.G, SSB was sought. The note-dated 18.5.2006 would show that the new DG, SSB had also suggested that continuation of the applicant would not be desirable as it will create unhealthy atmosphere at the Force Headquarters and it may create indiscipline and insubordination in the rank and file of the organization.

30. When the above note was put up before the concerned authority it was opined that D.G, SSB may be asked to take appropriate action under the relevant provisions of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. This view was endorsed by another authority on 19.5.2006. We may mention here that we are unable to gather from the notes as to who were the authorities who expressed their respective opinions. Available on record is another note dated June 6, 2006 which recites that two officers, Mr. Himanshu Kumar and Mr. J.K.Sinha had held opinion that the applicant should be repatriated for the acts of omission / commission and that surely the independent sagacity of two officers of the rank of DG could not be ignored. The views of both of them have been constant in respect of the action recommended. Relevant portion of letter of Mr. Himanshu Kumar addressed to Home Secretary has been quoted and view has been expressed that applicant should be prematurely repatriated back to his parent cadre without citing any reason. This note has been prepared by SS ( (IS). When the matter came up before the concerned authority, it was mentioned that Portion A, the extract of letter of Mr. Himanshsu Kumar would make strange reading. So is the position with regard to portion B extract of letter of Mr. J.K Sinha. That being so, the concerned authority opined that it would be desirable that the present DG who has now been there for few months should give his own views in the matter. It was mentioned that guidance will be taken from the advice of present DG, SSB. This opinion came to be expressed on same date. When note aforesaid was prepared by SS (IS), decision was taken to obtain opinion of the new DG, SSB. The present DG Mr. Tilak Kak, vide his communication dated 8.8.2006 opined that both applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra should be repatriated as they were statedly making allegations against each other and this unhealthy atmosphere percolated down the line. He tried his best to patch up the differences between the two officers but still they were not seeing eye to eye on personal issues. Vide note dated 8.8.2006 the concerned authority thought it desirable to solicit the approval of Home Minister for premature repatriation of the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra to their respective parent cadres. The concerned authorities thereafter vide notes dated 10.8.2006 and 14.8.2006 agreed with the view of DG, SSB and sought approval for repatriating the two officers with immediate effect. The Home Secretary, it appears, agreed with it on 6.9.2006 and ultimately order was issued on 11.10.2006.

31. From the perusal of the records as mentioned above, whereas it may appear that repatriation of the applicant was initiated by Mr. Himanshu Kumar, DG, SSB on specific allegations against him with regard to indiscipline and insubordination, but ultimately that view was not endorsed by the concerned authorities and as such views of his two successors namely Mr. Jyoti Sinha, DG, SSB and Mr. Tilak Kak, DG, SSB, were sought. Even they agreed with views of his predecessor Mr. Himanshu Kumar, in so far as repatriation of the applicant is concerned, but the reason stated by them was un-healthy atmosphere prevailing in the organization due to infighting between the two officers namely applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. It is the case of the applicant also that he has been repatriated to his parent cadre because of alleged infighting between him and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra, even though he states that he had done nothing wrong to invite wrath of Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. What thus appears to be real cause of repatriating the applicant is bitter relations between two officers of the same rank, which had vitiated the atmosphere in the organization. The question that needs to be answered in the facts as detailed above is as to whether even if veil is lifted and the real reasons are traced for repatriation and it is found that the infighting between the two officers had resulted in repatriation of both, would it be stigmatic, which may adversely affect the applicant in his service career.

32. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the issue and have come to the conclusion that strained relations between two officers was personal to each other, wholly unconnected with performance of their official duties and would not be stigmatic to their service career and that is indeed the stand of respondents as well. It is unequivocally stated in the written statement that the repatriation of the applicant is not at all punitive and stigmatic and as such there is no question of stigma attached to his repatriation. The applicant has indeed shown his worth and has been appreciated for his work and conduct from time to time. From the averments made in the written statement it appears that the applicant is performing his duties well. There is no mention of any specific act of indiscipline indulged by the applicant that might have resulted into his repatriation. The reason, as mentioned above, is only infighting between two officers, not connected with their official duties and personal to them, which somehow resulted into a gradual deterioration of atmosphere in the organization. The counsel for the applicant is unable to refer to any stigma attached to the applicant, either on the basis of record or on the basis of pleadings, but for last para of the written statement which reads as under: 13. Further it is the discretion of the DG to give recommendation with regard to the continuance of any officer under his command and control. SSB is a border guarding force and an officer with a questionable conduct cannot be retained in force. It needs no emphasis that the acts of indiscipline in a Central Para Military Force cannot be allowed to go un-noticed. It is further submitted that the alleged misconduct on the part of the Applicant is not an isolated incident. Earlier in October 2000 he had been repatriated from IB in similar circumstances. Surely there is something amiss with the conduct of the officer. As the continuance of the Applicant in the CPMF was not considered in the interest of the health of the organization it was decided with the approval of competent authority that the officer should be repatriated. The pleadings extracted above as contained in the written statement, in our view have to be analysed in the context of other averments made in the written statement as well. It is too well settled that to appreciate in the context in which some specific pleading that may be sought to be relied upon by either of the parties have to be taken into consideration, while taking into consideration overall pleadings. We may mention that the learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of pleadings made in the written statement as extracted above, would contend that respondents have admitted that repatriation of the applicant was on the basis of specific allegations, i.e. indiscipline indulged in by him. That being so, it becomes essential to examine the extracted pleadings in the context of over all pleadings made in the written statement. It may be recalled that the facts projected in the application with regard to the applicant that he was posted in Intelligence Bureau and served there for 18 years, he was posted in hard areas and handled Kashmir problem for more than 5 years, and he served in Srinagar for over 2 years, are not in dispute. Appreciating his work in 1995, he was once again asked to handle the Kashmir problem; he served in strife torn northeast for 8 years and handled several militant related problems, he was awarded the Police (special duty) medal for devotion to duty, police medal for meritorious service, several professional awards and commendation certificates from the DIB as well as appreciation from the US FBI for service of a very high order are also not in dispute. It is clearly mentioned that the performance of the applicant is a matter of record and it is not in dispute at all. If at all there is dispute on facts, the same pertains to those events mentioned by the applicant, which may tend to show bias of the higher officers towards him. It is specifically and categorically averred that the repatriation of the applicant is not at all punitive and stigmatic and there is no question of stigma attached to his repatriation. After having mentioned all these, it is the last para no.13, where averments have been made as extracted above. In that context, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not appear to be a case where the pleadings and particularly one extracted above in paragraph 13, may amount to admission on behalf of respondents that applicant was repatriated to his parent cadre on such grounds which may be penal or stigmatic to his service career. The words that an officer with a questionable conduct cannot be retained in force clearly refer to infighting of the applicant with his counter part Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. Once again the words it needs no emphasis that the acts of indiscipline in a Central Para Military Force cannot be allowed to go unnoticed would take its colour from the only allegation made against the applicant, pertaining to infighting between him and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. In so far as the sentence As the continuance of the applicant in the CPMF was not considered in the interest of the health of the organization, it was decided with the approval of competent authority that the officer should be repatriated, is fallout of infighting of the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. The words Earlier in October, 2000 he had been repatriated from IB in similar circumstances have to be read with the earlier sentence, It is further submitted that the alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant is not an isolated incident. The earlier sentence pertains to the misconduct of infighting between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra. If the incidence in question is not a misconduct as explained above, the circumstances leading to repatriation of the applicant from IB would also not be a misconduct. Admission, if any, contained in paragraph 13 of the written statement has been explained. It is trite that admission can be explained or even shown to be erroneous. In our view, admission, if any, with regard to the questionable conduct of the applicant as contained in paragraph 13 extracted above, has been fully explained.

33. At this stage we may once again refer to facts in Union of India Vs. J.P. Verma & Another (supra), decided by the Honble Delhi High Court. The letter written by National Human Rights Commission to Government of India contained such allegations, which depicted Mr. J.P. Verma and another officer, who were very worried about the perks and orderlies than the job content of the post. While seeking to work with National Human Rights Commission they made enquiries with regard to perquisites attached to the office of the Director General (Investigation), NHRC and one of them wanted to know whether he could travel as he likes or whether he will have to seek permission from the Chairperson whereas another officer enquired about the number of constables/orderlies a DG (Police) is entitled to and wanted to know whether he will be provided the same number. Both the officers expressed their disinclination to come and meet the Chairperson after being told about the availability or otherwise of the kind of perks they were looking for in the Commission. The Chairperson, NHRC was appraised of this matter and he directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Home Ministry to highlight the lopsided priorities of those senior officers, who were waiting to serve the nation in the rank of Director General of Police. The allegations made against Mr. J.P. Verma and another officer directly show that they were interested in pay and perks and other facilities rather than their intent to serve the country. The allegations painted them in a bad light, directly related to their being good or bad officers. The conduct, if the allegations were to be true, would be such that they would be unworthy to hold a particular office. It is for that precise reason that the memorandum came to be issued to them to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against them. The allegations made against Mr. J.P. Verma and another would depict them in poor light, unworthy of holding a high office. There is a marked distinction between the motive of allegation, which may adversely affect the career of an officer than such allegations which may be purely accidental, wholly unconnected with the conduct or efficiency of the officer. The observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in K.H.Phadnis vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), pertinently brings out this distinction between character and integrity of an officer and such allegations that may be an outcome of a pure accident of service.

34. In our considered view, infighting between the applicant and Mr. Yashwant Malhotra is purely an accident of service wholly unconnected with their character and integrity. No punitive action based upon this pure accident of service, has been taken against the applicant nor is one under contemplation. In the facts and circumstances, it is thus to be held that infighting of the applicant with his counter part Mr. Yashwant Malhora, which resulted into repatriation of the former, is neither penal nor stigmatic to his service career. The applicant is indeed a distinguished officer and his repatriation appears to has been ordered purely on administrative reasons. Definitely it is an outcome of mishap or an accident.

35. Before parting with this order, we would like to mention that the counsel for applicant, on the basis of letter dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-3), contended that the parent state of the applicant is not adjusting him, there being no post of the level of the applicant. We can only observe that applicant is from Assam & Meghalaya cadre and once he is reverted, there may not be much choice with the State, as the applicant has to be adjusted. However, the applicant has not sought any relief for his adjustment in his parent cadre. The argument has been raised only against repatriation of the applicant. Surely if the applicant is not accommodated in his parent cadre, he would have a remedy available to him.

36. In view of the observations as made above, we find no merit in this application and dismiss the same. In view of peculiar facts of this case, costs of litigation are made easy. (V.K.AGNIHOTRI) ( V.K.BALI) MEMBER (A) CHAIRMAN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A.NO.1929 OF 2006 Decided on : _________ CORAM : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN & HONBLE MR.V.K.AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER (A). Kulbir Krishan, . Applicant By : Mr.P.P.Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Bushra Ali, Advocate. Versus Union of India & Others  Respondents By : Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.

1. Whether to be reported?

2. Whether to be circulated to other Benches? ( V. K. Bali ) Chairman