dofp2024_00105 — Applicant, who entered the service of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Services University, Chennai, called as the Applicant's parent organization and possesses Doctorate Degree acquired in 1995 and Post Doctorate in Research, University of Alabama (USA) in the year 1999-2000, was suspended under Rule 10 (2) of Central Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1995 (1965 Rules). While he was under deemed suspension, another order, dated 10-10-2018 was issued by borrowing organization rep

Applicant, who entered the service of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Services University, Chennai, called as the Applicant's parent organization and possesses Doctorate Degree acquired in 1995 and Post Doctorate in Research, University of Alabama (USA) in the year 1999-2000, was suspended under Rule 10 (2) of Central Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1995 (1965 Rules). While he was under deemed suspension, another order, dated 10-10-2018 was issued by borrowing organization repatriating the Applicant to his parent organization. Against those orders, the Applicant filed this OA. Tribunal after hearing both sides held that the impugned order repatriating the services of the Applicant is simpliciter. No adverse comment was made by the borrowing organization while repatriating the services of the Applicant to his parent cadre which may touch upon his integrity and honesty. It is an accident of service. Hence, the OA is devoid of merit and dismissed — The chunk is part of the judgment in a case involving Dr. Parimal Roy, who was an assistant professor at Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Services University, Chennai. The case concerned his repatria... — Facts : Applicant as stated above was employed in Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Services as Assistant Professor in 1989. He went on deputation as Director to National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics, Bangalore (NIVEDI for short). Applicant was kept under deemed suspension with effect from 1-9-2018 under provisions of Rule 10 (2) of CCS (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which shocked the borrowing organization and hence, the borrowing organization repatriated him to his parent cadre after 3 years of borrowed service. In view of the above position, he filed O.A. No. 1758/2018 before the Tribunal. The said order as stated above was stayed on 12-11-2018 as an interim measure. By order, dated 11-12-2018, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant. In this case, the Tribunal found that the borrowing organization has a justifiable reason for the Applicant's repatriation to his parent cadre. The earlier judgments relied upon both sides are not applicable and will be of no use to the case. The rules warrant disciplinary proceedings in the given set of circumstance and since the borrowing organization is not in a position to initiate disciplinary proceedings which is in the domain of the parent organization, the repatriation vide order, dated 17-3-2020 (A/12) is not an unjust order. Tribunal herein relied on earlier judgments of the Tribunal. In those judgments, the main observation is, "when the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds, as for example unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance".