The High Court · 2025

the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. BHEEMA CHARY The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR'THE STATE OF TELANGAIiIA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH I{UMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.9758 of 2O2L DATE: 24.L2 ,zo2_s_ ilctu'ccn: Thr: Sccre ta.ry, Gclvcrnment of India, Ministry of Horne Affairs and another. D.l(alpana Nar,'ak ancl 2 others AND o8DJIB ....Petitioners ....Respondents I-Iearrd Sri N. Bhujanaga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of Inc'lia erppcaring for Lhc petitioners and Sri K. Vivek Rcddy, learned Senior counsel on bchalI of Sri G. Bhccma Chan'lor lhe respondenls and perusecl the record.

2. w.P.No.975B of 2021, is filed under Articre 226 of the Constitution of India, n'ith the following prayer vrz., the petitioners praAs the I'Ion'ble Court to issrre Wit, ord.er or direction, especiallg one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to ord.er dated 24/1/2O2O in O.A.No.372 of 2O1B on tle file of the Hon,ble Central Administratiue Tribunal, Hgderabad Bench, Hgd.erabad. and quash the scs.me bg declari.ng illegal, arbttrary, contrary to \-' ' i .i. 2 - It.ttu uncl 1:nss such other orcic:r or furlht'-r orders as deem ftt crtd pronc,r.

3. The prcsclil Writ Pclit-iotr ha:r bccn trlcd br. thc Union o[ Indi:1. represetrted by' its Secretary', Dcpitrtment of Pci'sonnel arnd Training (DoP"t) challe nging rhe ordcr ciatcd 24.O1.2O2O of the Central Administrative l'ribunal (hcre after "Tribunal" for brevity) in O.A.No.2 I I 372 I 2O18 (l-rereafter "O.A" tor brevity). Factual matrix

4. 'l'he corc lacts leading to the filing of the prcsent writ pctition arc as follorvs: i. The rcsponclent No.1 is ar-r All India Services Officer belor-rging to the Indian Police Servicc (lPS) borne on the'l'amil Nadu cadre. 'ii. The respondent No.1 was edlowect Inter-Cadre Deputation from the State ol Tamil Nadu to erst'rhile cadre of Andhra Pradesir State ior a period of five (05) ycars uide Mintstry of Home Affairs order No.l-2lo2l 107 1201O-IPS.lV dated 2l.LO.2OLO. iii. Responctcnt No. 1 joir-recl thc crst'nt,hile cadre of Andhra Pradesh on 14"01.2O11. Accordingly, the respondent No.1's approved period of Inter-Cadre Deputation of five years ended on 13.O 1.2016. :/ ,'./ 3 iv. The respondent No.1 continued to serve in the state of Andhra Pradesh beyond the sanctioned tenure of five years. The over stay o1'thc respondent No.1 u'zrs purportedly due to the adrninistrative difficulties and service exigencies faced b1' the newly bifurcated State of Telangana, which had a deficit of senior AII India Service officers. v. The Ministry of Home Affairs initially brought it to Lhe notice of the Tamil Nadu Government that the respondent No.1 had not reported to his parent cadrc after expiry of the approved period of Inter Cardre Deputation. vi. The Ministry also directed the State of Telangana by letter dated

28.06.2O 16 to relieve the respondent No.1 if not already relieved. vii. The respondent No.1 \'as finally relieved from 1'elangana on

20.o5.2017 viii. The Ministry of Home Affairs by Memo dated 17.01,.2018 treated the period of over stay of the respondent No.1 i.e., from 02.03.20L6 till 19.05.2017 as unauthorized over stay, that "the period of over stay shall not be counted for any increment with cumulative effect"; directing the recovery of excess payment and stating that adverse notice would be taken against his during empanelment. 4 ix.The respondent Nc.1 chaLlenged Memo clated 17.01.20T8 before the 'lribunal b5, follou'ing O.A. 'ihc Tribunal allon,ed the O.A bv order dzrtcrl )4.O1 .)O2O anci set asidc thc N4emo dated

17.01.2018 declaring it arbitrarl,, illegal and contrary to service conditions. 'lhc Union of [r.dia (Petitioncrs) filed Lhe present rvrit petition challcr-rging the said orcler of the Tribunal. Submissions of the petitioners

5. Learned Dcputy Solicitor General appcaring on behalf of the petitioners, advanced the follo,"r,ing submissions hereunder: That tl-re servicc corrdiLions ol'Al1 India Service officers, including matters relatinil to inter-cadre deputation, are comprehensively governed by the All-lndia Serviccs (Cadre) Rules, 1954. In particular, Rule 6(i ) vests exclusive authorit-y in the Central Government as the Cadre Oontrolling Authoritl, to regulate Inter- cadre movement and postings, and no Stat-c Government can act contrary thereto.

11. That Inter-cadre deputation being an exception to the normal rule of service in the parent cadre, any extension beyond the sanctioned period can only be granted with the prior and prospective approval o[ thc Central Government. The unilateral --Vt /// //' 5 retention of respondent No.1 by the borrowing State, even on the ground ol administrative exigencies is r,i,ithout legal sanction, ruon esl in ias', and incapablc of cirhcr binding the central GovcrnmenL or conferring any cr-rlbrceable right upon the respondent No.1.

111. That the retention of respondent No.l in the State of Telangana, thor-rgh appears to be pursuant to a proposal of the state of Telangana dated 27.09.2016 for extension of her tenure while on Inter-caclre dcputation, r,r'as not actllalll'the result of a suo mottt decision of the Government of Telangana. Rather, the proposar lvas initiatcd at the instance of respondent No.1, who made a representation to the Director General of police, Tclangana, asserting that the respondent I\cr.I was eligible to be considered lbr extension beyond five (05) years. , That the Mcmorandum dated L7.ol.2or9 does not partake the character of a disciplinary or punitive order. It merely records lhe administrative and regulator-\' consequences flowing from non- compliance with the statutory cadre Rules. In issuing the said memorandum, the central Government acted strictly within its jurisdiction as the cadre controlling Authority, in determining \. '. '-; 6 - the manner in which the periocl of unauthorised overstay is to be ' treat.ed. v. ThaL the CAT committed an error of lavr and Jurisciiction by substiLuting its owrl assessrment, ir-r place of thc dccision taken b_v the competcnt authority, 'ui,hich armounts to judicial overreach into matters of cadre cotitiol and service policl-, '"r,hich lie u,ithin the exclusive domain of tire executive unclcr the statutory framework governing i\ll tnclia Scrvices. Submissions of the respondent No.1

6. Learned Senior counseI appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, advanced the following subrnissions hereunder: i. 'lhat the respondent No.1 continucd to discharge her duties strictly in compliance rvith thc explicit dircctions issued by the Government of relangana. 'the respondent No.1 has no discretion to unilaterally relinquish charge or report back to the parent cadre, as such conduct would have amounted to abandonment of duty and invited disciplinary action. ii. That the delay in reliving her was solely due to State's own administrative decisions and not to any lapse, request, or 7 omission on his part, however, the State Government in its affidavit filed before thc Tribunal has confirmed that the respondent No.1's continuation was entircly at the request and instance of thc Statc Government. That the continuation of responrJenr No. I beyond the sanctioned deputation period was compelled by post-bifurcation administrative exigencies and shortage oI senior officers, and that penal consequcnccs for such overstay are arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 1V That respondent No.1 rendered full and effective service during the relevant period zrnd, having accepted such service and paid salary, denierl of consequential benelits would be inequitable and contrary to the docLrine of quarilum rneruit. 7 We have taken note ol thc respective contentions urged. Analysis and finding

8. In the present case, the retention of respondent No.l, though purportedly based on the proposal dated 27.09.2016 for extension of her tenure on lnter-cadre deputation. was not initiatcd suo motu by the !l I Governmenh of Telangana. The record shows that respondent No.1 a made a representation to the Director Gcneral of Police, Telangana, claiming eligibilit.r, lirr extcrrsiott bevor-rcl fir,e (05) r'cars on thc basis ol DoP&T O.ll.No.140l l7l2l20 16-AIS-ll datecl )7.(.)6.2016. ;\cling on tiris representa[ion, the proposal was recommended bt, the Director (]eneral of Police and ttrereafter fcrwarded by the Statc (]ovcrnment to the Ccntral Government citing shortage of officcrs. C)n cxarninatiorr of the said office Memoranctum, this court finds that sucl-: reiiance was ntisplaced and that thc proposal did not stem from anv independent or suo ntotu decision of the State Goverrrnrent.

9. This Court finds that thc period of r)r,t,:;stav ol rcspclnclcnt No. 1, lraving occurred de hors the statutory sanction of the central Government, is in lerrv an unauthorised period o[ absence from thc: parent cadre. The adrrrinistrative exigencies of the borrou'ing State cannot unilaterally dilute or overridc the Ccntral Rules. Any such interpretation would fundamentally undermine the trnified structure of the All-lndia Services, effectively converting a deptrted officcr into a permanent asset of the borrowing State rvithout the approval of thc Cadre Controlling Authority. n t1 ,i I U 9

10. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel tn Central Council for Research in Aguruedic Sciences a. Biko.rtan Dasr fails to support respondent No.1's con[ention and, does not advancc his case inasmuch as the order oi thc l'ribunal suffers from error of law and Jurisdiction.

11. At the outset, this Court finds that the Tribunal failed to uphold the absolute supremacy of the statutory framervork governing Inter- cadre deputation under the All-lndia Siervices (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Rule 6(1) makes it unequivocalll' 61"ur that thc po'*rer to'depute'and, by necessary implication, the po\ver 1o sanction the tenure of that deputation, rests exclusively with the Central Government. The relevant Rule is extracted hereunder for ready reference: .6. Deputation of cadre officers - (1) A cadre offtcer mag, with the concurrence of the State Gouentntents concented and the Central Gouernment, be deputed for seruice under the Cenlral Gouernment or another State Gouernment or under a companA, associatton or body of indiuiduals, whether incorptsTslsd or not, wltich ts whotly or substantially ouned or controlled by the Central Gouernment or by another State Gouernment. Prouided that in case of any clisugreement, the matter shall be decided bg the Central Gouemment and th.e State Gouernment or State Gouemments concerned shall giue effect to the decision of the Central Gouernment. I lzoz:; 16 scc 462 J 10 12' It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal committccl a jurisdictional error in treating the Memoranclurn issued bv the ll1ir-ristry o[ Home Alfzrirs as a disciplinary penalty. A disciplinary i)cllalLv rreccssarill'pre- supposes a formal inquiry into alleged misconduct, such as wilful absence or disobeclience of orclers. The impugnec Memorandum, hon'ever, represents a regulatory consequence flort,ing from a particular status, namely unauthorised retention, and rrot from an.r. acljuclication of fault or misconduct. The Central Government, having sanctioned deputation for a specified periocl, is required to account for any period of overstzty in accordance with its extant policy so as to preserve the integrity of the cadre roster and thc all-lndia scniority srr-ucture. Treating sucl-r period as unauthorised absence or as lcave u'ithout pay is thus a natural, logical, and nr-.n-punitive administrative cor-rsequence arising from the failure of the borrou,ing State and rcspopdcnl No.1 tcr adhere to the Central Government's deputation orders. 13- The contention of respondent No. 1 that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively, based on rcliance on sonia. a. orienta.l Insura.nce2 is misplaced, and does not advance the case of respondent No. 1, as there is no retrospective application of the executive instructions in the present case. ' 1zoot1 10 scc 627 1i L4' with regard to the submission that respondent No.1 continued to discharge duties during the relevant period, it is well settled that considerations of equity cannot override mandatory statutory rules. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Raghunath Raj Bareja and. others u. htnjab National Bq.nk and otherls 3 has repeatedly cautioned that equity cannot supplant the law. Both the borrowing state and respondent No.1 were fully aware of the All-lndia Service Rules governing inter-cadre deputation. The borrowing sLate was obliged to relieve respondent No. i upon expiry of the sanctioned tenure, and respondent No.1, being a senior All-lndia ser-vice officer, r.r,as equally obligated to ensure compliance with rhe orders of the Central Government and to report any delay to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The failure to do SO, even if not wirful, necessarily attracts thc administrative consequences impc,sed by the cadre controlling Authority in order to uphold the rule of law.

15. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has acted beyond scope of its limited judicial revie,*,t, jurisdiction and rendered a decision contrary to the statutory scheme. 3 MANU/SC/545612006 = 2007 (4)ALT4 (sC) \. .a 12 -

16. Accorclirrgly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 24.Ol.t2O2O passccl in O.A.No.372 of 2018. Thc mt-'morandum dated L7.01.20i8 is hereby restored. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness witness THE HON'BLE cHrEF JUSTTCE APARESH KUMAR srNGH, Wednesday, TI" Twenty Fourth Day Of December Two Thousand And Twenty five SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAC /TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The chief Secretary., .The State of rerang^ana,_3rd Froor, samatha Brock, Tetangana secretaiiat, Hvoeri6Jo _ ;00 b22;?;lr;d;, The chief Secretary, The state of ramir Nadu, chennai. one cc to Sri N- Bhujanaga Rao, Deputy solicitor General of lndia[opUC] One CC to Sri G. Bheema Chary, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies 2 3

4. 5 TJ BS € ) HIGH COURT DATE D:2411212025 ORDER WP.No.9758 of 2021 ii.;! t F S o 5 r[B ?02t o o * * i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (*' -1-.1 '