- (1.) The writ petitioner in this proceeding, who was serving as Deputy Registrar (Court & Judicial) of this Court had applied for the post of Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 24th March, 2010, which post he intended to serve on deputation basis. He had submitted his application before the Registrar, Original Side on 25th March, 2010, for the purpose of forwarding the same to the concerned officer of the Central Government. This was done, according to the petitioner, in terms of clause 6(ii) of the High Court Service (Duties, Rights and Obligations of Employees) Rules, 1983 (the 1983 Rules) which requires an existing employee of the Court to apply for any other post through his appointing authority. The advertisement for the post, the text of which has made Annexure "P2" to the writ petition also stipulated that the public institutions specified therein including the High Court could forward the applications of the willing officers whose services could be spared. There is controversy in this proceeding as to whether the Registrar, Original Side of this Court was empowered to forward the petitioner's application in the capacity of his appointing authority or not. I shall deal with that aspect of the controversy later in this judgment. The advertisement for the subject post in this case was issued in a publication entitled Employment News of 20-26th March, 2010. On 3rd May, 2010, a "no objection certificate" was issued by the Registrar Original Side of this Court. This was issued in response to a request by the petitioner made on 25th March, 2010, to the Registrar, Original Side. In that request letter, it was indicated that the post for which he was applying was that of Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal and "Noobjection" was given for that post only. The application of the petitioner was forwarded on 3rd May, 2010, by the Deputy Registrar (Administration) of this Court. The petitioner was granted permission to leave station and appear in the interview for the post by the Registrar, Original Side.
(2.) Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar Administration and Registrar Original Side were informed by the Undersecretary (DRT) Department of Financial Services, Government of India that the petitioner was selected for appointment of in the of post Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on deputation basis for a period of three years from the date he assumes charge of the post or until further order whichever was earlier. The petitioner was asked to send his acceptance and the said officer of this Court was asked to relieve the petitioner by 4th October, 2010, for reporting to the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (DRAT). The petitioner submitted his application dated 10th September, 2010, before the Registrar, Original Side for relieving him and for granting lien on his parent post for two years. The reason why his posting was in the DRAT and not in DRT has not been explained to this Court, but this issue is not of much significance for effective adjudication of this proceeding.
(3.) The said application was placed before His Lordship the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice, observed that "the officer, had not taken permission of the Chief Justice as such the proposal cannot be approved. The officer might join at his risk". This observation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice appears from the endorsement made on a note sheet laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, dated 17th September, 2010, which was produced before me at the time of hearing by the learned Counsel for the High Court administration. Thereafter, on 20th September, 2010, the petitioner made a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, tendering his apology, and he also indicated therein that he was not aware of the requirement of obtaining permission of the Hon'ble Chief Justice as his appointing authority. The petitioner joined the post of Registrar, DRAT Kolkata on 5th October, 2010, on deputation and the petitioner submitted his representation on 5th October, 2010, for reserving his right in respect of his service. The petitioner claims to have received a subsequent order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 2nd November, 2010, under the cover of a letter dated 2nd November, 2010, written by the Undersecretary Government of India (DRT). In the said letter of 2nd November, 2010, the petitioner was directed to clarify the position and provide reasons/justification as to why his candidature ought not to be cancelled in view of the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice was passed on 5th October, 2010, to the following effect:- " The employee having joined service with D.R.A.T. without seeking permission of the Chief Justice and without submitting his resignation deserves to be dealt seriously for the misconduct. Inform his employer accordingly.";