The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a borrowing department can exercise disciplinary powers against a government employee deputed to it only so long as the employee-employer relationship between the borrowing department and the deputed employee subsists. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 395]

Observing that disciplinary action cannot be taken against the employee once the employee is repatriated to the parent department, the bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat stated:

"Once the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee comes to an end, the Borrowing Department has no authority to take action against the employee concerned".

A petition was filed by the Platoon Commander of Special Armed Forces on May 6, 2013, and his post was changed to SI in 2016. Thereafter, through an order dated August 21, 2019, the CGP issued an order sending the petitioner on deputation to STF. He was repatriated to SAF through an order of February 13, 2020.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that after 5 years of his repatriation, the STF issued a charge sheet initiating a departmental inquiry against the petitioner for alleged interference in the investigation of the STF. The petitioner requested that the departmental inquiry be transferred to SAF, as the STF had no jurisdiction to proceed against him after his repatriation to his parent department.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that instead of calling the chargesheet, the STF appointed an Enquiry Officer by order dated June 1, 2026, to proceed with the departmental inquiry pursuant to the chargesheet dated May 2, 2025. It was argued that the chargesheet of May 2, 2025, and the order of June 1, 2026, were without jurisdiction.

The counsel for the respondents claimed that the petitioner has wrongly treated his posting in STF as a deputation. STF is not a separate department or statutory body but is part of the Police Department under the administrative control of the DGP and the Home Department. Therefore, the petitioner had always remained an employee of the Police Department, and there was no change in his employer or master-servant relationship.

The counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner's posting from SAF to STF was only an internal posting within the same department and not a deputation in the legal sense. It was argued that the allegations against the petitioner were related to serious misconduct. It was further submitted that the petitioner had adequate opportunity to submit his replt in chargesheet, produce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and raise all factual and legal objections.

The bench examined the order of the DGP of August 21, 2019, by which the petitioner was sent on deputation from SAF to STF. The court further examined the order of February 13, 2020, by which he was repatriated from STF to SAF.

The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was "whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 is applicable only when the employee continues on deputation or can be invoked even after the period of deputation is over, or the employee is repatriated back to his Parent department".

Examining Rule 20 of the 1996 Rules, the bench noted that disciplinary action against an employee can be taken only till the master servant relationship persists.

The bench further highlighted,

"Rule 20 of the Rules 1966, gives power to the Borrowing Department to take disciplinary action against a Government servant who is on deputation and the powers to the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority are conferred on the borrowing department but the said powers can be exercised by the borrowing department so long as the relationship of master and servant. Once the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee comes to an end the Borrowing Department has no authority to take action against the employee concerned".

Referring to the objection that STF is not a separate department, the court noted the GOP, which demonstrated that for purposes of deputation, such specialised units are treated as separate units. The bench emphasized:

"Merely because the ATS or STF functions under the overall administrative control of the Police Department, it cannot be said that there can be no deputation to such units".

Accordingly, the court held that the borrowing department could not have issued the chargesheet. Thus, the chargesheet and order appointing the enquiry officer were set aside, and the petition was allowed.