- (1.) Petitioner was appointed as a constable in September 1954 in U.P. Civil Police and was confirmed on that post. In April 1964 the petitioner was sent on deputation to subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and joined the Central Department accordingly, as constable. In 1968 the petitioner was promoted as Head constable in the Intelligence Bureau of the Central Government and was transferred to Patna. In 1977 the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade II and was transferred to the State of West Bengal. While working as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade II the petitioner was transferred to Varanasi and was later on posted at Ghazipur. It appears that in 1982 the petitioner was granted, leave for three days, but be remained absent even after the expiry of leave. It is stated by the petitioner that due to his illness he could not join immediately after expiry of leave, but later on he applied for medical leave, which was granted. It is further stated by the petitioner that in 1983 he went on two days' leave to attend his wife who was seriously ill and had to stay there due to her serious ailment which resulted in her death in June, 1983, on account of which the petitioner also fell ill due to shock. By order dated 7-6-1983 passed by respondent No. 1 the petitioner was sent back to his parent department, namely, U.P. Civil Police. The Superintendent of Police, Khiri by order dated 3-11-1983 directed the petitioner to join Civil Police as constable, the post on which he was working in 1964, when he was sent on deputation. The petitioner, however, declined to join the Civil Police as constable and claims to have made representation in connection therewith, and ultimately filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 7-6-1983, passed by Central Intelligence Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, sending him back to his parent department (U.P. Civil Police) and the order dated 7-6-1983 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Khiri requiring the petitioner to join as constable in Civil Police. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for to treat the petitioner as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police and to pay him salary accordingly. Counter-Affidavits have been filed on behalf of Central Intelligence Officer, Central Government and Superintendent of Police, Khiri. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) In para 25 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Central Intelligence Officer, respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India has issued an order for absorption of those who are working in Central Intelligence Bureau, on deputation, provided the deputationist has completed five years' service on deputation and possess good record of service and there is permanent vacancy existing for absorption in the department. It is admitted that the petitioner has worked in the Intelligence Bureau of Central Government on deputation for about 19 years, but he was not considered for absorption. It was the duty of the Intelligence Bureau to consider a person who is working on deputation with them after completing requisite period of service as and when there is permanent vacancy. It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that there never was permanent vacancy for absorption of the petitioner. The case set up in the counter-affidavit by them is that in the later period of service the petitioner was not acting in responsible manner, inasmuch as he remained absent without leave more than once. In case an officer is found to be negligent in performance of duty or guilty of any misconduct it is open to the Government to take disciplinary action against him, but to keep an officer on deputation for 19 years without considering him for absorption, does not appear to be fair and reasonable.
(3.) When the petitioner was sent back to his parent department (U.P. Civil Police) after 19 years of deputation in Central Intelligence Bureau, the petitioner was directed to join as constable in civil police, Khiri, the post which he was holding in 1964, when he was sent, for the first time, on deputation to the Intelligence Bureau. This has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner. Had he continued in civil police for all these 19 years he would have earned increment and promotions and would have become sub-Inspector of Police, a post which is said to be equivalent to the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade II in the Central Intelligence Bureau. The Superintendent of Police overlooked 19 years of service of the petitioner on deputation, by posting him as constable and the petitioner has thus been reduced not only to rank but his pay has also been substantially reduced.;