K. Viswanathan & Anr. vs The Director Of Intelligence Bureau & Ors.

The identical relief, founded on similar facts and circumstances, has been sought in both these applications. Since both the OAs arise out of similar facts and circumstances, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case and the relief sought in OA No. 1053 of 2025 are set out hereunder:

The Applicant in OA No.1053 of 2025 joined the Bureau of Immigration, Chennai, as JIO-II/Exe., PIS No.220410, on 01.06.2022 on deputation from the Tamil Nadu Police for a period of three years. Similarly, the Applicant in OA No.1054 of 2025 joined the Bureau of Immigration, Chennai, as Sub-Inspector on 01.06.2023. Subsequently, the period of deputation of both Applicants was extended from three years to five years on 16.12.2024.The Applicant in OA No.1053 of 2025 continued to serve in the Respondent Department until 28.05.2025. However, vide Office Order No.591 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025, communicated to him through WhatsApp, he was prematurely repatriated to his parent department on purportedly “adverse grounds” and relieved from the Bureau of Immigration, Chennai, with effect from 28.05.2025 (A/N), without any transfer benefits, pursuant to IB Headquarters Order No.20/Estt(G-3)/2025(Rep)-3157-68 dated 28.05.2025. The impugned order does not disclose the specific grounds for such repatriation. It is contended that no prior notice was issued, no enquiry was conducted, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Applicant before passing the impugned order. Since a substantial period of his approved deputation tenure remained, the Applicant has challenged the premature repatriation in the present OA.

At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Respondents prematurely terminated the Applicants' deputation without issuing any prior notice. Relying upon the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17.06.2010, he contended that a mandatory three months’ notice is required before premature reversion to the parent cadre. According to him, the Respondents failed to comply with the said requirement and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel further submitted that any premature termination of deputation must be effected in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice. The Applicants were neither informed of the reasons for the proposed repatriation nor afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain their position. No charges were framed or communicated to them and no enquiry was conducted before the impugned order was passed.

It was further contended that the impugned order merely refers to “adverse grounds” without disclosing the nature or particulars of such grounds. The order, therefore, is non-speaking and does not disclose the basis on which the Applicant was prematurely repatriated. Learned counsel submitted that, particularly when the Applicant’s deputation had been extended to five years, the Respondents were required to disclose cogent reasons for curtailing the approved tenure.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2766/2017 dated 08.11.2017 and prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the relief sought in the OAs be granted.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents, relying upon the reply statement, submitted that the 1st Respondent is competent to issue orders of repatriation in respect of deputationists serving in the Department across India. In the present case, the proposal for repatriation of the Applicants was initiated by the 2nd Respondent and placed before the 1st Respondent, who, being the competent authority, issued the repatriation order and directed that the Applicants be relieved forthwith. In compliance with the said order, the Applicants were struck off the strength of the 2nd Respondent, and the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 was accordingly issued.

Learned counsel further submitted that, though the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010 prescribes three months’ notice for premature repatriation, the requirement was subsequently relaxed to one month in respect of the Bureau of Immigration vide DoPT I.D. Note dated 10.07.2020. However, in cases involving serious allegations relating to integrity or matters concerning national security, an official may be repatriated forthwith, without notice, where his continued service on deputation is considered detrimental to public interest.

It was submitted that, upon enquiry, serious misconduct on the part of the Applicants was found, including acceptance of illegal gratification and other monetary benefits, such as foreign cigarette cartons, liquor bottles and cash, from masters of vessels and vessel agents in connection with official transactions. It was further alleged that the Applicants had misused documents submitted by crew members for immigration purposes with the mala fide intention of obtaining liquor bottles from duty-free shops and selling them outside for monetary gain. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the public interest involved, learned counsel submitted that the Applicants were rightly repatriated with immediate effect and that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the OAs.

The applicants have filed Rejoinder to which the respondents have also filed Reply reiterating their respective grounds made in the OAs and in the reply statement.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side at length, perused the pleadings and materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that the Applicants joined the Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Chennai, on deputation from the Tamil Nadu Police on 01.06.2022 and 01.06.2023, respectively, initially for a period of three years. Subsequently, their deputation tenure was extended from three years to five years vide order dated 16.12.2024. The Applicant in OA No.1053 of 2025 served in the Respondent Department from 01.06.2022 to 28.05.2025, while the Applicant in OA No.1054 of 2025 served from 01.06.2023 to 28.05.2025. Both Applicants were, however, prematurely repatriated to their parent department vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2025, which was communicated to them through WhatsApp. The terms and conditions governing deputation are prescribed in the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010. Paragraph 9 thereof specifically deals with premature reversion of a deputationist to the parent cadre and provides as follows:

In the present case, it is evident from the record that the Respondents did not comply with the aforesaid requirement before prematurely repatriating the Applicants. No advance notice, either to the Applicants or to their parent department, was admittedly given prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 28.05.2025. The prescribed procedure for premature repatriation was, therefore, not followed.

We further note that, in their reply, the Respondents have attributed the Applicants’ repatriation to alleged misconduct, lack of devotion to duty and unsatisfactory performance, inter alia. Thus, the reasons disclosed by the Respondents in the course of the proceedings are materially different from the contents of the impugned order, which merely ordered premature repatriation without setting out any specific reason. The impugned order, when viewed in the light of the allegations subsequently disclosed by the Respondents, consequently acquires a stigmatic character. Moreover, premature repatriation before completion of the approved tenure, particularly when founded on allegations concerning conduct and performance, is likely to cast a cloud over the employee’s integrity, conduct and competence.

In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India through Government of Pondicherry & Another v. V. Ramakrishnan & Others, reported in MANU/SC/1108/2005, decided on 07.10.2005. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the premature curtailment of a deputation tenure, held that the specified period of deputation cannot ordinarily be curtailed without affording the deputationist a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court also observed that a deputationist cannot be treated as holding a position so tentative and vulnerable that he may be repatriated at the whims or discretion of an individual authority. Paragraph 32 of the said judgment reads as under:

Undisputedly, in the present OAs the applicants had been repatriated prematurely without giving them or to their parent organization any advance notice as contemplated in paragraph 9 of the DoPT OM. dated 17.06.2010. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, advance notice to a deputationist before ordering his repatriation prematurely is a mandatory requirement, which the respondents have failed to observe in this case. The averments made in the reply of the respondents also make it clear that the premature repatriation was not Simplicitor.

We find that the respondents ought to have given specific reasons, although not recorded in the impugned order, as to dissatisfactory performance of the applicants, their actions amounting to insubordination and indiscipline. Taking all these things into consideration, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is not only illegal but stigmatic as well. Such an order should not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice as well as without adhering to the stipulated conditions in paragraph 9 of the DoPT O.M. dated 17.06.2010.

We also find similar view was taken by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2766/2017.vide its Order dated 08.11.2017. In the above circumstance, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2025. The Respondents are directed to allow the applicants to rejoin within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The period from 28.05.2025, the date when the applicants were relieved by the impugned order, and till they rejoins shall be treated as period spent on duty.

We also hold that the respondents, however, have liberty to repatriate the applicants to their parent department, by following the due process as contemplated in DoPT OM. and keeping in mind the judgments of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra.

In the result, both the OAs are disposed of on the terms indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.