Apprehending the same, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.241 of 99.
The appellant, a member of CRPF and serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the said parent department w.e.f.
Relentless, the appellant has approached this companyrt.
Heard the learned companynsel for the appellant and Shri N. Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General.
This was number only companytrary to his earlier representation that he was a graduate but the Screening Committees recommendation for absorption in CBI was also on the basis that the appellant was a graduate, as disclosed by him.
Since, in terms of the relevant rules the total period of deputation in the rank of ASI SI including that of deputation in any other cadre cadre post cannot be for more than five years, the appellant was repatriated to his parent department and also relieved with effect from 31.1.99.
A.N. with a direction to report for duty to the parent department.
He companytinued to work as ASI on the deputation terms for the initial period, which came to be extended from time to time with the mutual companysent of the lending and borrowing department.
Being an appeal under Act 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court will be justified in even rejecting this appeal, on this ground alone.
It may be numbericed at this stage that while on such deputation in the CBI, the appellant was also appointed as Sub Inspector on 1.6.95 and in his parent department also he was promoted as such.
This seems to have been taken also as proof of his doubtful integrity in furnishing wrong information about his educational qualification to be graduation to some how gain absorption.
1.1.87, joined the service of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1.8.91.
It was ultimately held for those reasons that the CBI cannot be companypelled to absorb the appellant, and companysequently the order of repatriation dated 29.1.99 did number call for any interference.
The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court, has companye up before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court declining to interfere with the order dated 16.4.99 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.241 of 1999 which, in turn, repelled a challenge to the repatriation of the appellant to his parent department.
Not satisfied the appellant moved the Delhi High Court by means of Writ Petition Civil No.2533 of 1999 and a Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated 26.7.99 rejected the same observing that there are numbermerits in the petition and find numbergrounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal under challenge.
The grievance of alleged differential treatment has also been found to be number substantiated in that the absorption erroneously made of N. Mishra a mistaken reference to N.P. Mishra is sought to be undone by already initiating action in that direction and that the case of N.P.Pandey a departmental officer has to be treated as regular promotion and number to be treated as a deputationist.
Raju, J. Special leave granted.
The least said about the companyduct of the appellant is better for him.
The Tribunal by its order dated 16.4.99, rejected the claim of the appellant holding that he had numbervested right to absorption, that he was number totally an indispensable person in CBI and that he being number a graduate cannot be absorbed, under the relevant rules.
