[Service Rules] The Government Being A Model Employer Cannot Act Like The East India Company Of The Bygone Days: Karnataka HC [Read Order]
Live LawThe Karnataka High Court on Monday observed that the Government being a model employer cannot act like the East India Company of the bygone days when the conditions of service are broadly regulated by the Service Rules. vide Notification dated 27.02.2020 unilaterally cancelled the deputation of the petitioner and sent him back to his parent department i.e., PWD; the petitioner challenged this Notification in Application No.1270/2020, which came to be negatived by the KSAT vide an order, therefore, the Petitioner had to knock at the doors of Writ Court. In the present case, the Court noted, the borrowing department unilaterally sent the petitioner back to the parent department abruptly and unceremoniously, that too without any prior or post-consultation with the lending department; this according to the Court, "apart from being contrary to rules, involves denigration of the civil servant who needs to be treated with some respect" The Court also observed that the idea of deputation involves three ingredients namely, the lending department, the borrowing department and the lent hand; ordinarily, a valid deputation envisages a consensus amongst all the three agencies involved unless the law otherwise states. Further, the Court said, "It hardly needs to be stated that the Government being a model employer cannot act like the East India Company of the bygone days when the conditions of service are broadly regulated by the Service Rules; thus, the impugned action falls short of "fair standard procedures" The Court gathered an impression that the impugned action of the borrowing department was prompted by the act of petitioner in approaching the KSAT earlier and getting reprieve against his displacement. The Court acknowledged the fact that the Government Order dated 19.11.1981, prescribes the consultation between the borrowing and the lending departments as a precondition for cutting short the tenure of or extending the period of deputation In this context, the Court opined, "True it is that these Government Orders/Circulars arguably may not have the force of law so as to give a concrete cause of action for a legal proceeding; but they provide the standards with which the validity of administrative action can be assessed; even these orders have not been borne in mind by the first respondent in issuing the impugned Notification."