Deputationist Has No Right to Insist on Full Tenure: Calcutta HC upholds Repatriation order against Senior Private Secretary of ITAT [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ( CAT ) repatriating a Senior Private Secretary of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) from AFT to parent department itself, observing that a deputationist has no vested right to continue for the full period of deputation.

While dismissing the writ petition filed by Vukkem Rambabu, the Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the petitioner’s repatriation by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was entirely legal and justified.

The petitioner, a Senior Private Secretary in the ITAT at Visakhapatnam, was selected on deputation for the post of Principal Private Secretary (PPS) at the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kolkata, through a skill test and interview, receiving his appointment order on 17 February 2022.

Owing to delays in being relieved by his parent department, he joined AFT only on 16 April 2024, over two years later. Within six months, he was issued a notice on 3 October 2024 informing him that he would be repatriated to ITAT after 90 days. After withdrawing an earlier challenge to make a representation, he was relieved on 2 January 2025. His subsequent challenge before the CAT (OA 29/2025) was dismissed, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his deputation could not be cut short without proving unsuitability or misconduct. He relied heavily on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17 June 2010, asserting that deputationists are entitled to protection against premature repatriation unless compelling grounds exist, and contended that no such grounds were established in his case.

He also asserted that no approval from the Defence Minister, the competent authority had been obtained before issuing the repatriation notice. According to him, the repatriation was arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and motivated by mala fides, particularly from the Registrar of AFT Kolkata, whom he accused of acting with personal bias.

The Union of India opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner’s conduct at AFT had triggered repeated administrative concerns. It was pointed out that immediately upon joining, he raised an improper claim for TA advance after completing his journey, he repeatedly bypassed the official hierarchy by writing directly to the Chairperson and senior authorities in violation of DoPT instructions and he continued filing complaints despite multiple advisories and warnings.

The authorities said that repatriation was approved by the Defence Minister on 31 December 2024, satisfying all procedural requirements under the DoPT OM dated 17 June 2010.

The Court noted that the CAT had thoroughly considered the petitioner’s repeated disregard for administrative hierarchy, his persistent representations against immediate superiors, and the advisories issued by the AFT Principal Bench, and rightly concluded that repatriation was warranted.

The Bench found no procedural irregularity. It was noted that the 90-day notice was issued and prior approval from the competent authority, the Defence Minister was obtained.

In addition, the Court observed that the well-settled principle that a deputationist has no right to continue on the deputation post for the full tenure. It depended on judgments such as Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat, and observed that an employee on deputation can be repatriated at any time at the instance of either department, and there is no vested right to remain or to be absorbed in the borrowing organisation.

Accordingly, the court refused to interfere with the CAT’s order against the ITAT Senior Private Secretary.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates