IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12440 of 2008)

Sarbdeep Singh Virk … Appellants

Versus

The State of Punjab and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against interim order

dated  April  25,  2008,  rendered  by  the  Division

Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008 staying

the order dated April 3, 2008 passed by the Central

Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench  in

Original Application No. 692-CH of 2007 (1) holding

that  the  repatriation  of the appellant to the State

of Maharashtra under order of  Union of India dated

April  10,  2007  as  also  his  joining  in  his  parent

cadre under the State of Maharashtra  is  valid, (2)

quashing  the  order  of  suspension  dated  April  4,

2007 as well as holding  that final authority to take

disciplinary  action  after  termination/expiry  of  the

period  of  deputation   vests   with   the  Central

Government and (3) directing the State of Punjab to

remit the entire matter relating to the disciplinary

proceedings  against  the  appellant  to  the  Central

Government for taking a final decision.

3. The  appellant  is  a  1970  batch  IPS  Officer  of

Maharashtra  cadre.   In  the  year  1984  he  was

2

specially sent to Punjab to combat militancy.  It is

the  case  of  the  appellant  that  the  single  minded

devotion  to  get  the  State  of  Punjab  free  from

militancy  bore  fruits  and  today  the  State  has

become  one of  the  most  peaceful  and prosperous

States  in  India.   The  appellant  was  promoted  as

Director  General  of  Police,  Punjab,  and  he  took

several measures for public good.  He issued several

instructions to the police  force such as (i)  not to

accept Diwali gifts, (ii) not to heed to any political

interference and follow the rule book (iii) not to bow

to  pressures  in  cases  of  land  grabbing  even  if

political  leaders  were  involved,  (iv)  to  adopt  a

professional  attitude,  etc.   According  to  him

because of his commitment to duty he earned wrath

of certain sections of politicians and, therefore, false

and frivolous allegations were leveled  against  him

by the respondent Nos. 5 and 7.  After the formation

of  new Government  the  respondent  Nos.  5  and 7

requested  through proper  channel  for  pre-mature

3

termination of the repatriation of the appellant.  The

appellant  also  sought  pre-mature  termination  of

repatriation.   The  Government  of  Punjab  did  not

object to the request of the appellant for pre-mature

termination of his repatriation.  On March 23, 2007

a First Information Report being FIR No. 98 of 2007

was lodged in which one Vijay Pal Singh was named

as an accused.  It is the case of the respondent that

during  police  interrogation,  said  Vijay  Pal  Singh

allegedly stated that he had purchased some land

for  the  appellant.   On  March  23,  2007  the

investigating  agency  had  moved  an  application

before  the  competent  court  seeking  discharge  of

accused Vijay Pal Singh from FIR No. 98 of 2007.

On the basis  of  the statement  made  by Vijay  Pal

Singh  during  his  interrogation,  a  departmental

inquiry  was  sought  to  be  initiated  against  the

appellant  and  the  appellant  was  placed  under

suspension  by  order  dated  April  4,  2007.

Apprehending arrest  in a false  case  the  appellant

4

moved an application seeking anticipatory bail with

reference to FIR No. 98 of 2007.  On notice being

served, the Investigating Officer made a statement

before the court that the appellant was not required

with  reference  to  the  said  case.   The  appellant

moved Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 54610-M of

2007  seeking  transfer  of  investigation  of  the

criminal case to CBI.  The respondent State again

made  a  statement  on January  16,  2008  that  the

appellant was not required in connection with FIR

No.  98  of  2007.   The  appellant  was  served  with

article of charges.  Meanwhile,  the Government of

Maharashtra gave its no objection certificate to the

Central Government for pre-mature termination of

repatriation of  the appellant.   The  Government  of

Maharashtra also sent a copy of letter dated March

28,  2007  to  the  Government  of  Punjab,  but  no

objection was raised by the Government of Punjab.

For the first time on April 12, 2007 the Government

of Punjab wrote to the Central Government that by

5

an  order  dated  April  4,  2007,  issued  by  the

Principal  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Punjab,

the  appellant  was  put  under  suspension.   The

Central  Government,  by  an order  dated  April  10,

2007,  ordered  pre-mature  termination  of  the

repatriation  of  the  appellant  from  Punjab  to  his

parent cadre Maharashtra.  The order dated April

10, 2007 was neither reviewed nor recalled and is

still in force.  On April 12, 2007 the Government of

Punjab  raised  an  objection  to  the  pre-mature

termination of the repatriation of the appellant from

Punjab to Maharashtra on the ground of his alleged

suspension  from  service  by  order  dated  April  4,

2007.   A  case  of  possession  of  disproportionate

assets  was  registered  by  the  Punjab  Vigilance

Bureau against the appellant and he was arrested

on September 9, 2007.  Before effecting arrest of the

appellant  neither  the  Delhi  Police  nor  the

Maharashtra  Government  nor  the  Central

Government  was  informed.   Before  registration  of

6

the  said  case  no  explanation  or  comment  was

sought for from the appellant.  As the appellant was

of the opinion that order suspending him as well as

registering  a  case  against  him  for  possessing

disproportionate  assets  were  illegal,  he  moved

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench

for  quashing  of  those  orders.   The  Tribunal,  by

order  dated  April  3,  2008,  partly  allowed  the

Original  Application  moved  by  the  appellant  and

held  that  his  repatriation  to  the  State  of

Maharashtra under  order  of  Union of  India  dated

April 10, 2007 as well as his joining parent cadre

under  the  State  of  Maharashtra  was  valid.   The

Tribunal further held that the order of suspension

dated April 4, 2007 was bad in law and quashed the

same.  It  was also held by the Tribunal that final

authority  to  take  disciplinary  action  after

termination/expiry of the period of deputation was

the Central  Government and directed the State of

Punjab  to  remit  the  entire  matter  relating  to  the

7

disciplinary  proceedings  initiated  against  the

appellant  to  the  Central  Government  for  taking  a

final decision.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the above mentioned findings

and directions given by the Tribunal,  the State of

Punjab has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India  by filing CWP No.  6821-CAT of  2008.   The

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by order dated

April  25,  2008,  has  stayed  the  operation  of  the

order  dated  April  3,  2007  passed  by  the  Central

Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench,

Chandigarh, in Original Application No. 692-CH of

2007, giving rise to the instant appeal.

5. This Court  has heard the learned counsel  for the

parties at length and in great detail.  This Court has

also considered the documents forming part of the

appeal.

8

6. As noticed earlier the Union Government, by order

dated April 10, 2007, has repatriated the appellant

to the State  of  Maharashtra whereas  the order  of

suspension dated April 4, 2007 is quashed by the

Tribunal.  Prima facie this Court is of the opinion

that  after  termination/  expiry  of  the  period  of

deputation the  final  authority  to take  disciplinary

action against the appellant would be the Central

Government.  The respondent No. 3 herein, i.e., the

State  of  Maharashtra  had  filed  written  statement

before the Central Administrative Tribunal.  In the

said  written  statement  it  was mentioned  that  the

appellant  had  reported  for  duty  in  the  State  of

Maharashtra on April 27, 2007 and was allowed to

join  the  duties  in  his  parent  cadre  after  his

repatriation  to  Maharashtra  by  the  Central

Government.  It was further mentioned in the reply

that  the  appellant  had  joined  the  Government  of

Maharashtra on April  27, 2007 and as no post in

the rank of Director General of Police was vacant he

9

was  made  to  wait  compulsorily.   The  statements

made  by  the  State  of  Maharashtra  in  its  written

statement  filed  before  the  Central  Administrative

Tribunal  are  reiterated  before  this  Court  by  the

learned counsel  for the State of Maharashtra.  As

the  appellant  has already  joined  duties  in parent

cadre pursuant to the order issued by the Central

Government, this Court  is of the opinion that the

High  Court  was  not  justified  in  staying  the

declaration made by the Tribunal that repatriation

of  the  appellant  from the  State  of  Punjab  to  the

State of  Maharashtra was valid.   The order dated

April  10,  2007  repatriating  the  appellant  to  the

State  of  Maharashtra  will  have  to  be  given  effect

notwithstanding the order of suspension dated April

4, 2007.  The declaration made by the Tribunal that

the  Central  Government  is  competent  to  take

disciplinary  action  against  the  appellant  and

directing  the  State  of  Punjab  to  remit  the  entire

matter  relating  to  the  disciplinary  proceedings

10

initiated  against  the  appellant  to  the  Central

Government  should  not  have  been  stayed  by  the

High Court.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

this Court is of the opinion that the interim order

dated April 25, 2008, passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008,

deserves to be modified by clarifying that it would

be open to the State of Maharashtra to give posting

to the appellant on his repatriation to the State of

Maharashtra from the State of Punjab.

8. For  the  foregoing  reasons  the  appeal  partly

succeeds.  It is clarified that in view of repatriation

of the appellant to the State of Maharashtra under

order dated April 10, 2007 of the Union of India it

would be open to the State of Maharashtra to give

posting  to  the  appellant  as  Director  General  of

Police.   This  Court  is  informed  by  the  learned

counsel for the parties that CWP No. 6821-CAT of

11

2008, filed by the State of Punjab, is listed for final

disposal  before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and

Haryana at Chandigarh on May 21, 2008.  Having

regard to  the  facts  of  the  case  the  High Court  of

Punjab and Haryana is requested to dispose of CWP

No. 6821-CAT of 2008 finally on or before May 31,

2008.  The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

……….………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

…………………….…J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi; May 16, 2008.

12