DNANAESHWAR EKNATH VANARASE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a third round of litigation. The O.A. has a checkered history also. The applicant who was serving as an unarmed Head Constable in the State Police of Maharashtra was taken on deputation as Sub-Inspector of Police CBI w.e.f. 28.2.1986. Inspite of his completing more than 10 years of service on deputation basis with CBI, he was not considered for absorption and was sought to be repatriated to the Police Department as Head Constable though he was promoted as Inspector of Police in the CBI, The applicant moved O.A. No. 220/2000 challenging the action of the respondents in repatriating him to the parent department. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2000 quashed and set aside the order of the repatriation of the applicant and directed the respondents to take back the applicant in their organisation forthwith and further directed to consider the case of the applicant for permanent absorption on merits and in accordance with rules. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Bombay High Court vide Writ Petition No. 369/2001. While the Writ Petition was pending, the applicant moved the Contempt Petition No. 7/2001 complaining about the non-implementation of the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court had come to be dismissed and the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to comply with the order within six weeks. The Contempt Petition filed by the applicant was also disposed of by the Tribunal with the direction to the applicant to join at Bhubaneshwar and also direction to the CBI to consider the case of the applicant as directed on 13.11.2000 forthwith and not later than two weeks. The applicant joined at Bhubaneshwar on 1.7.2000. He was thereafter called before the Screening Committee for interview in connection with his selection in the CBI. The CBI Head Officer informed the Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneshwar on 27.7.2001 that the applicant was unfit for being absorbed. The applicant was therefore relieved on repatriation of Maharashtra State on 3.8.2001. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal challenging the orders dated 27.7.2001 and 3.8.2001. After the reply in the O.A. was filed and the pleadings were complete, the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard by the Tribunal and vide judgment dated 15.2.2002, the Tribunal had given directions to the respondents to reconsider the applicant for absorption in CBI once again ignoring the fact that he had been repatriated on 3.8.2001 to the State Government. THIS judgment of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2265/02 and vide orders dated 29th January, 2003 the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing with following observations:-

(2.) Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 590 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the O.A. afresh within three months. All contentions of the parties are left open."

(3.) MR. V.S. Masurkar, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has defended the action of the respondents in calling the applicant for screening and denying absorption in CBI on the ground that he was not found fit for absorption. He has raised the preliminary objection of the maintainability of the O.A. in this Tribunal contending that since the applicant was transferred to Bhubaneshwar and has already joined at Bhubaneshwar, this Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the O.A. He has further submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 220/2000 necessary steps were taken by the authorities to implement the directions of the Tribunal and the applicant was reinstated in CBI and was posted at Bhubaneshwar. He was also subsequently called before Screening Committee for absorption in CBI as the rules provided for such a screening. However, since the applicant was not found fit by the Screening Committee, he could not be absorbed. According to him, the direction to the respondents were to consider the applicant for absorption in CBI as per the rules and since the rules stipulated that absorption will be consequent to the Screening Committee finding him fit for absorption, the applicant could not be absorbed in view of his unfitness held by the Screening Committee.