Borrowing Department Can Repatriate Deputationist On Grounds Of Unsuitability Without Conducting Full Departmental Probe: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing the petition of a government employee challenging premature repatriation to his parent department, observed that repatriation of a government employee to their parent department based on mere satisfaction of the competent authority is valid. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai was considering whether the curtailment of the petitioner's...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dismissing the petition of a government employee challenging premature repatriation to his parent department, observed that repatriation of a government employee to their parent department based on mere satisfaction of the competent authority is valid.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai was considering whether the curtailment of the petitioner's specified extended tenure amounts to a stigmatic punishment necessitating a full-fledged departmental enquiry.
It said that the in case of a deputationist/officer on deputation to a department, who is being curtailed from deputation over unsatisfactory performance, there was no need for a full fledged enquiry unless it was a case of malice.
"The yardsticks of natural justice applicable to a deputationist and a non-deputationist are fundamentally different. In the case of a deputationist, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the borrowing department regarding unsuitability does not require strict adherence to a full-fledged departmental enquiry, which is ordinarily mandated in the case of non-deputationists facing disciplinary action. Mere subjective satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the unsuitability or unsatisfactory working performance of the employee is legally sufficient to repatriate his services to his parent department," the court said.
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who held the post of Uccha Madhyamik Shikshak in the Department of Tribal Affairs, challenging the validity and legality of the order issued by the Chief Executive Officer (respondent no 4) with approval from the Collector and Mission Director (respondent no 3).
In the impugned order, the services of the petitioner were prematurely repartiated to his parent department before completion of the maximum deputation tenure of four years. The petitioner further sought a writ of certiorari to quash the subsequent order whereby a private individual (respondent no 5) was appointed as Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC).
Per the facts of the case, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of BRCC on a deputation basis per the MP Jan Shiksha Niyam, 2003. After counselling, he was appointed to the post initially for a period of two years, extendable up to four years upon satisfactory working performance.
The petitioner completed his initial two-year period. However, the respondents passed orders of January 4 and 5, 2026, reparting the petitioner to his parent department because of negligence in the distribution of student uniforms in Block Sardarpur, alleged misbehaviour with a Head Master, and habitual failure to furnish required information to superior authorities within stipulated timeframes.
The counsel for the petitioner claimed that he had an insignificant role in the distribution of uniforms, contending that the amounts were credited into students' bank accounts via a governmental portal.
Further, the counsel claimed that the allegations regarding delay in uniform distribution were due to technical failures in e-KYC or defaults by Self Helo Groups, producing certificates from Jan Shikhshaks to substantiate his claim.
The counsel for the respondents claimed that the petitioner was bound by the conditions of his deputation. Clause 2 of the appointment letter explicitly permitted the curtailment of deputation in the event of unsatisfactory work behaviour, negligence in executing departmental schemes or disobedience of higher authorities' orders.
The counsel for the respondents highlighted that a joint inquiry was initiated after several irregularities in uniform distribution were published in a news report. The enquiry found the petitioner severely negligent in ensuring the distribution of funds to 5800 students under the Hitgrahi Yojana.
The counsel asserted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and his reply was duly considered before concluding the enquiry. A separate Departmental Enquiry committee also found the petitioner guilty of improper conduct during a school inspection on June 17, 2025, where he neglected academic reviews to focus solely on financial records.
The court noted that, "The yardsticks of natural justice applicable to a deputationist and a non-deputationist are fundamentally different. In the case of a deputationist, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the borrowing department regarding unsuitability does not require strict adherence to a full-fledged departmental enquiry, which is ordinarily mandated in the case of non-deputationists facing disciplinary action.
The contours of a deputationist's rights are strictly circumscribed by the administrative exigencies of the lending and borrowing departments, and interference is warranted only in cases of proven statutory violation, malafide, or punitive stigma masquerading as a simple reversion".
In the present case, the bench observed that no stigma or malice was made out, but the impugned order did reference negligence and unsatisfactory work, which are merely the foundation for the administration to conclude that the petitioner was unsuitable for handling sensitive responsibilities of BRCC.
Therefore, the bench held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference and thus dismissed the petition.
Case Title: But Singh Bhanwar v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.1494/2026
For Petitioner: Advocate LC Patne
For State: Government Advocate Swati Ukhale
For Chief Executive Officer: Advocates Vibhor Khandelwal and Jayesh Gurnani