The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.I: SRI K.VIVEK REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHEEMA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COT'RT T\OR THE STATE OF TEIIINGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE SRI APARESH KI'ITIAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN AND WRIT PETITION No. 9884 of 2O2l DATE: 24.L2.2O25 Between: The Secretar5r, Government of India, Ministry of Home Aflairs and another. Mahendra Kumar Rathod and 2.,h.r:N ORDER .Petitioners ....Respondents Heard Sri N. Bhujanaga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G. Bheema Chary for the respondents and perused the record.

2. W.P.No.9884 of 2021, rs filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer viz., the petitioners praAs the Hon'ble Court to issue Wit, order or direction, especially one tn the nature of Writ of CerTiorari, calling for the records relating to order dated 24/ 1/ 2020 in O.A.No.373 of 2018 on the jlle of the Hon'ble Central Adminbtrotiue Trtbunal, Llyderabad Bencl4 Hyderabad and I I i 2 quash the same bg declaing illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and pass such other order orfurther ord.ers as d"eem-fit and proper.

3. The present writ petition has been filecl by the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of personnel and rraining (DoPT) challenging the order dated 24.o1.2020 of rhe central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter ,,Tribunal,, for bre.zity) in O.A.No.21 /373120 18 (hereafter ..O.A,, for brevity). Factual matrix

4. The core facts leading to the f-rling of the prescnt writ petition are as follo'uvs: i. The respondent No.1 is an All tndia Services officer betonging to the Indian Police service (lps) borne on the'lamil Nadu cadre. ii. The respondent No.1 was allowed Inter-cerdre Deputation from the state of Tamil Nadu to erstwhile cadre of Andhra pradesh State for a period of five (05) years uid"e Mintstry of Home Affairs order No.I-2 lO21 / 08 l2O 10-tps.tV dated L6.12.2OLO. iii. Respondent No.1 joined the erstwhile cactre of Andhra pradesh on o2.o3.2o11. Accordingly, the respondent No.1's approved period of Inter-cadre Deputation of five years ended on 01.03.20 i6. \ .\ .. .:,,,.:,.'-i'i -..1:,..:::! .-a i.1.i,,.9r+ 3 iv. The respondent No.l continued to serve in the state of Andhra Pradesh beyond the sanctioned tenure of five years. The over stay of the respondent No.1 was purportedly due to the administrative difficulties and service exigencies faced by the newly bifurcated State of Telangana, which had a dehcit of senior Atl India Service officers. v. The Ministry of Home Affairs initially brought it to the notice of the Tamil Nadu Government that the respondent No.1 had not reported to his parent cadre after expiry of the approved period of Inter Cadre 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.l was finally relieved from Telangana on

20.o5.2017 viii. The Ministry of Home Affairs by Memo dated LT.ol.2ol8 treated the period of over stay of the respondent No. 1 i.e., from 02.0 3.2016 till 19.o5.2orr 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. I I It. l<i ,t 4 ix. The respondent No.1 challenged Memo dated 17.01.2018 before the l'ribunal by following O.A. The Tribunal allowed the O.A by order dated 24.O1.2O2O and set aside the Memo dated

17.O1.2O18 declaring it arbitrary, illegal and contrary to service conditions. The Union of India (Petitioners) filed the present writ petition challenging the said order of the Tribunal. Submissions of the petitioners

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, advanced the follouring submissions hereunder: i. That the service conditions of A11 India Service ofhcers, including matters relating to inter-cadre deputation, are comprehensively . governed by the All-lndia Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954. In particular, Rule 6(1) vests exclusive authority in the Central Government as the Cadre Controlling Authority to regulate Inter- cadre movement and postings, and no State Government can act contrary thereto. ii. 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 of the Central Government. The unilateral \ \ \ \ 5 retention of respondent No.1 by the borrowing State, even on the ground of administrative exigencies is without legai sanction, non est in law, and incapable of either binding the Central Government or conferring any enforceable right upon the respondent No. 1. It1 That the retention of respondent No.1 in the State of Telangana, though appears to be pursuant to a proposal of the State of Telangana dated 27.O9.2016 for extension of his tenure while on Inter-cadre deputation, was not actually the result of a suo motu decision of the Government of Telangana. Rather, the proposal was initiated at the instance of respondent No.l., who made a representation to the Director General of Police, Telangana, 4sserting that the respondent No.1 was eligible to be considered for extension beyond five (05) years. IV That the Memorandum dated L7.O1.2018 does not partake the character of a disciplinary or punitive order. It merely records the administrative and regulatory 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 / ,3 6 the manner in which the period of unauthcirised overstay is to be treated v. That the CAT committed an error of lau., a.nd Jurisdiction by substituting its own assessment, in place of the decision taken by the competent authority, which amounts to judicial overreach into matters of cadre control and service policy, 'uvhich lie within the exclusive domain of the executive under the statutory framework governing All India Services. Submissions of the respondent No.1

6. Learrred Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, advanced the following submissions hereunier: i. fhat the respondent No.l continued to discharge his duties strictly in compliance with the explicit directions issued by the Government of Telangana. 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 him rvas solely due to State's ou,n administrative decisions and not to any lapse, request, or \ \ \ \ 7 omission on his part, however, the State Government in its affidavit fited before the Tribunal has confirmed that the respondent No.1's continuation was entirely at the request and instance of the State Government. That the continuation of respondent No.1 beyond the sanctioned deputation period was compelled by post-bifurcation administrative exigencies and shortage of senior officers, and that penal consequences for such overstay are arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. IV That respondent No.l rendered full and effective service during the relevant period and, having accepted such seivice and paid salar5r, denial of consequential benefits would be inequitable and iontrary to the doctrine of quantum meruit.

7. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged Analysis and finding

8. In the present case, the retention of respondent No. 1, though purportedly based on the proposal dated 2\.09.2016 for extension of his tenure on Inter-cadre deputation, was not initiated suo motu by the Government of relangana. The record shows that respondent No.l ,d 8 made a representation to the Director General of police, Telangana, claiming eligibility for extension beyond live (05) years on the basis of DoP&T o.M.No. 140 1 1T / 2 I2o16-AIS-il dated 22.06.2016. Acting on this representation, the proposal was recommended by the Director General of Police and thereafter forwarded bv th.e State Government to the Central Government citing shortage of officers. On examination of the said office Memorandum, this court finds that such reliance was misplaced and that the proposal did not stem from any independent or sucs motu decision of the State Government.

9. This court hnds that the period of overstay of respondent No.1, having occurred de hors the statutory sanction of the central Government, is in law an unauthorised period of absence from the parent cadre. The administrative exigencies of the borrowing State cannot unilaterally dilute or override the Central Rules. Any such interpretation would fundamentally undermine the unified structure of the All-lndia services, effectively converting a d.eputed officer into a permanent asset of the borrowing State without the approval of the Cadre Controlling Authority. \ \ 9

10. The reliance placed by the learned senior Counsel in central Council for Research ln Aguruedic Sciences u. Bikattan Dasr fails to support respondent No.1's contention and, does not advance his case inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal 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 framework governing Inter- cadre deputation under the All-lndia Services (cadre) Rules, 1954. Rule 6(1) makes it unequivocally clear that the power to'depute'and, by necessary implication, the power to 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 offiers - (1) A cadre officer may, with tlte concurrence of tLrc state Gouernments concented and. the central Gouernment, be deputed for seruice under the centrar Gouemment or another state Gouemment or under a compqna, associatton or body of indiuiduals, whether incorporated or not, whtch is whoily or substantiollg owned or controlled by the central Gouemment or bg another State Gouemment. Prouided that in case of ang dtsagreement, the matter shall be decid.ed. bg the central Gouernment and. the state Gouernment or state Gouernments concemed shall giue effect to the decision of the Central Gouemment. 1 lzoz:; 16 scc 462 10 t2. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in treating the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a disciplinary penaltl'. A disciptinaly penalty necessarily pre- supposes a formal inquiry into alleged misconduct, such as wilfui absence or disobedience of orders. The impugned Memorand.um, however, represents a regulatory consequence flowing from a particular status, namely unauthorised retention, ancr not from any adjudication of fault or misconduct. The central Government, having sanctioned deputation lor a speci{ied perioci, is required to account for any period of overstay in accordance with its extant policy so as to preserve the integrity of the cadre roster and the all-India seniority structure. Treating such period as unauthorised absence or as leave without pay is thus a natural, Iogical, and non-punitive administrative consequence arising liom the failure of the borrowing state and respondent No.1 to adhere to the central Government's deputation orders.

13. The contention of respondent No. 1 that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively, based on reliance on sonta a, oriental rnsurance2 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. 2 1zoot1 10 scc 627 \ \ \ 11

14. With regard to the submission that respondent No.l 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 Roghunath Raj Bareja and, others a. htniab Nqtional Bonk and, others 3 has repeatedly cautioned that equity cannot supplant the law. Both the borrowing State and respondent No. i were fully aware of the All-lndia Service Rules governing inter-cadre deputation. The borrowing State was obliged to relieve respondent No.l upon expiry of the sanctioned tenure, and respondent No.l, being a senior All-India service off,rcer, was equally obligated to ensure compliance with the orders of the Central ) ! Government and to report any delay to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The failure to do so, even if not wilful, necessarily attracts the administrative consequences imposed by the Cadre Controlling Authority in order to uphotd the rule of law. r\ t

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has acted beyond scope of its limited judicial review jurisdiction and rendered a decision contrary to the statutory scheme. 3 MeNu/sc/scs6/2006 = 2oo7 (4)ALT 4 (sc) i I I I I t:t IM l' i I 12 16' Accordingry, the writ petition is arowed, setting aside the order dated 24.or.2o2o passed in o.A.No.373 of 201g. The memorandum dated IT.Ol.2}tg is hereby restored. No costs. . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs. rhe Hon'bre sRrAfARFt!'rdMii Srrvcilrr,d c;ff justice That Rule Nisi has m.19g.4!"otute as above witness Twentv Fourth oav oibecemoei,'rwJ irrJir"l'ra and rwenty Five. o_n this wednesday, the To,

1. The Chief Hyderabad //TRUE COPYII SD/. K. MADHAVI B OFFICER Secretariat, 2' The chief secretary, chennai, State of ramir Nadu 3. The secretary, Government of rndia, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Derhi t 5. One CC to SRI G.BHEEMA CHARY, Advocate tOpUCI 6' one cc to sRr N.BH.,JANGA I:iB:?,f,ffii"3""??,Tflr{,"J tfi:onner ano rraining (Dopr), North Brock, R$g, DEpury solrcrroR GENERAL oF rNDrA, High court roi tn" siriJ"i i;Ed;# iri"r"bad [opUC] ly3"g3:Jtt"",irtoR sERvlcES, Hish court ror the state or retansana at u

8. Two CD Copies BSR PVL I ;d HIGH COURT DATED: 2411212025 I li, I ,] l, Lrj l, li, li: iI 'I II ORDER WP.No.9884 of 2021 f t t-iE $ c I 3 06 rrg 2026 * /--. ':. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t, '\a ^4 ,i-:irlid.+ t.,+ , , . -J-. ' . ;.$:t -.*r+"j' irlffir{: 'i:::;ffi.- ,::Ei ;irf;1 Jii' i'' *: .li 1::. {. $l*