- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The instant appeal is directed against interim order dated April 25, 2008, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008 staying the order dated April 3, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No. 692-CH of 2007 (1) holding that the repatriation of the appellant to the State of Maharashtra under order of Union of India dated April 10, 2007 as also his joining in his parent cadre under the State of Maharashtra is valid, (2) quashing the order of suspension dated April 4, 2007 as well as holding that final authority to take disciplinary action after termination/expiry of the period of deputation vests with the Central Government and (3) directing the State of Punjab to remit the entire matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to the Central Government for taking a final decision.
(3.) The appellant is a 1970 batch IPS Officer of Maharashtra cadre. In the year 1984 he was specially sent to Punjab to combat militancy. It is the case of the appellant that the single minded devotion to get the State of Punjab free from militancy bore fruits and today the State has become one of the most peaceful and prosperous States in India. The appellant was promoted as Director General of Police, Punjab, and he took several measures for public good. He issued several instructions to the police force such as (i) not to accept Diwali gifts, (ii) not to heed to any political interference and follow the rule book (iii) not to bow to pressures in cases of land grabbing even if political leaders were involved, (iv) to adopt a professional attitude, etc. According to him because of his commitment to duty he earned wrath of certain sections of politicians and, therefore, false and frivolous allegations were leveled against him by the respondent Nos. 5 and 7. After the formation of new Government the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 requested through proper channel for pre-mature termination of the repatriation of the appellant. The appellant also sought pre-mature termination of repatriation. The Government of Punjab did not object to the request of the appellant for pre-mature termination of his repatriation. On March 23, 2007 a First Information Report being FIR No. 98 of 2007 was lodged in which one Vijay Pal Singh was named as an accused. It is the case of the respondent that during police interrogation, said Vijay Pal Singh allegedly stated that he had purchased some land for the appellant. On March 23, 2007 the investigating agency had moved an application before the competent court seeking discharge of accused Vijay Pal Singh from FIR No. 98 of 2007. On the basis of the statement made by Vijay Pal Singh during his interrogation, a departmental inquiry was sought to be initiated against the appellant and the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated April 4, 2007. Apprehending arrest in a false case the appellant moved an application seeking anticipatory bail with reference to FIR No. 98 of 2007. On notice being served, the Investigating Officer made a statement before the court that the appellant was not required with reference to the said case. The appellant moved Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 54610-M of 2007 seeking transfer of investigation of the criminal case to CBI. The respondent State again made a statement on January 16, 2008 that the appellant was not required in connection with FIR No. 98 of 2007. The appellant was served with article of charges. Meanwhile, the Government of Maharashtra gave its no objection certificate to the Central Government for pre-mature termination of repatriation of the appellant. The Government of Maharashtra also sent a copy of letter dated March 28, 2007 to the Government of Punjab, but no objection was raised by the Government of Punjab. For the first time on April 12, 2007 the Government of Punjab wrote to the Central Government that by an order dated April 4, 2007, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, the appellant was put under suspension. The Central Government, by an order dated April 10, 2007, ordered pre-mature termination of the repatriation of the appellant from Punjab to his parent cadre Maharashtra. The order dated April 10, 2007 was neither reviewed nor recalled and is still in force. On April 12, 2007 the Government of Punjab raised an objection to the pre-mature termination of the repatriation of the appellant from Punjab to Maharashtra on the ground of his alleged suspension from service by order dated April 4, 2007. A case of possession of disproportionate assets was registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau against the appellant and he was arrested on September 9, 2007. Before effecting arrest of the appellant neither the Delhi Police nor the Maharashtra Government nor the Central Government was informed. Before registration of the said case no explanation or comment was sought for from the appellant. As the appellant was of the opinion that order suspending him as well as registering a case against him for possessing disproportionate assets were illegal, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for quashing of those orders. The Tribunal, by order dated April 3, 2008, partly allowed the Original Application moved by the appellant and held that his repatriation to the State of Maharashtra under order of Union of India dated April 10, 2007 as well as his joining parent cadre under the State of Maharashtra was valid. The Tribunal further held that the order of suspension dated April 4, 2007 was bad in law and quashed the same. It was also held by the Tribunal that final authority to take disciplinary action after termination/expiry of the period of deputation was the Central Government and directed the State of Punjab to remit the entire matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant to the Central Government for taking a final decision.;