Prabhat Mohan Thakur vs Ncsc & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 29 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010272692026
+ W.P.(C) 8678/2026 & CM APPL. 40614/2026, CM APPL.
41768/2026
PRABHAT MOHAN THAKUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Mr.Prabhat
Kumar, Ms. Risha Kumari,
Advocates.
versus
NCSC & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. T.P.Singh, SPC for R1.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. J.P. Singh, Mr.
Kushagra Kumar and Mr.
Mrityunjya Mahendra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,
or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order
dated 19.06.2026 (File No. NCSC-Adm.031/2/2026-
Admin[105765]) issued by Respondent No. 2; (b) Issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
directing the Respondents, jointly and severally, to forthwith
restore the Petitioner to his deputation post as Research Officer at
the NCSC, with all consequential service benefits and pay
entitlements;
(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, stay
the operation of the impugned Office Order dated 19.06.2026 in its
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 1 of 10
entirety;
(d) Direct Respondents to furnish the Petitioner with a complete
copy of the ICG Inquii7 Report and its findings, and afford him a
full and fair hearing before any further action is taken in
consequence of the POSH proceedings;
(e) Direct the Respondents to comply strictly with Rule 2.6 and
Rule 5.2 of the NCSC Rules of Procedure, 2009, and Para 9 of the
DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010, before taking any
further action in relation to the Petitioner's deputation;
(f) Direct Respondent No. 4 (DoPT), as the cadre controlling
authority for CSS, to ensure that no adverse notings, entries, or
records are made or maintained in the Petitioner's CSS service
record in consequence of the impugned order, pending disposal of
this petition;
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a member of the Central
Secretariat Service and holds the post of Assistant Section Officer in
the Ministry of Power, Government of India. On 31.05.2024, the
petitioner joined the National Commission for Scheduled Castes
(hereafter referred to as ‘NCSC’ ) as Research Officer on deputation,
for a period of three years.
3. On 29.10.2025, a complaint was made against the petitioner by
a colleague under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter referred
to as ‘POSH Act’ ). Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the
Internal Complaints Committee (hereafter ‘ICC’ ) on 16.02.2026 and
submitted his written response to the allegations on 13.03.2026.
4. Thereafter, by the impugned Office Order dated 19.06.2026, the
petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre with immediate effect.
The impugned order reads as under:
“The Competent Authority has directed that, in view of the
allegations and the enquiry conducted under the POSH Act, Shri
Prabhat Mohan Thakur, presently working as Research Officer on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 2 of 10
deputation in the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, be
repatriated to his parent cadre, i.e., the Ministry of Power, with
immediate effect.
2. Shri Prabhat Mohan Thakur, Research Officer, is hereby
relieved from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes with
effect from the afternoon of 19th June, 2026 and directed to report
to his parent cadre forthwith.”
(Banamali Naik)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India
5. The petitioner had initially assailed the impugned order before
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as
‘CAT’ ) by way of an Original Application bearing Diary No.
7175/2026. The same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated
01.07.2026, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate
forum in accordance with law.
6. The present petition has been filed thereafter.
7. By order dated 08.07.2026, this Court had directed that the
petitioner will be considered to be on leave in the Department
concerned till the next date of hearing.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has confined the challenge to a limited point, that is, that the
impugned order has been issued without the approval of the
Chairman, NCSC. He submits that in terms of Rule 2.6 of the Rules of
Procedure of the NCSC, all important administrative matters,
including those relating to deputation, are required to be placed before
the Chairperson. He places reliance upon a communication issued by
the Additional Private Secretary to the Chairman, NCSC, to contend
that the impugned order was issued without the knowledge or
approval of the Chairman.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 3 of 10
9. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents submits that
a deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and the
borrowing department is competent to repatriate him at any time. He
submits that in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 18.01.1999, the
Secretary, NCSC is the appointing as well as the disciplinary authority
in respect of Group ‘B’ posts in the NCSC and, therefore, the
approval of the Chairman was not required.
10. He further submits that the proceedings under the POSH Act
have not attained finality, as the complainant has expressed
dissatisfaction with the outcome of the inquiry.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
12. At the outset, it is relevant to note that it is well settled that a
deputationist does not have any indefeasible right to continue on
deputation in the borrowing department, and that he can be repatriated
to his parent department. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of
India: (2000) 5 SCC 362 . The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim, as a
matter of right, that he be continued with the NCSC till the expiry of
the period of deputation.
13. It emerges from the record that the aspect regarding the
approval of the Chairman has been sufficiently explained by the
respondents in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. The
relevant portion of the counter-affidavit reads as under:
“ 14. That the petitioner’s contention that the impugned Office
Order required the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chairperson is
equally misconceived. The petitioner was serving as a Research
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 4 of 10
Officer, a Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officer, and under the applicable
Gazette Notification dated 18.01.1999 issued by the Government of
India, the Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, is
the competent appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of
Group ‘B’ officers. There exists no statutory provision, executive
instruction or administrative requirement mandating prior
approval of the Hon’ble Chairperson before repatriation of a
Group ‘B’ officer serving on deputation. Without prejudice thereto,
it is submitted that the facts and circumstances relating to the
petitioner’s repatriation were duly brought to the notice of the
Hon’ble Chairperson and, therefore, the allegation that the
impugned action was taken behind the back of the Hon’ble
Chairperson is factually incorrect, misleading and contrary to the
official record.
xxx xxx xxx
28. … The Additional Private Secretary does not possess a
statutory, administrative or legal authority to certify, authenticate
or communicate the official decisions of Hon’ble Chairperson in
service matters. Any communication issued by such personal staff,
without any statutory authority or express authorization, cannot
override the official records maintained by the Commission nor
invalidate an otherwise lawful administrative action taken by the
competent authority.”
14. This Court finds merit in the explanation furnished by the
respondents. The petitioner, while on deputation with the NCSC, was
holding the post of Research Officer, which is a Group ‘B’ post . The
respondents have placed on record the Gazette Notification dated
18.01.1999, as per which the Secretary, NCSC is the appointing as
well as the disciplinary authority in respect of Group ‘B’ posts . The
impugned order does not impose any penalty upon the petitioner and
merely places his services back at the disposal of his parent
department. The petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory
provision which mandates the prior approval of the Chairman before a
deputationist holding a Group ‘B’ post is repatriated to his parent
department.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 5 of 10
15. Even otherwise, Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Procedure (hereafter
referred to as ‘RoP’ ) of the NCSC, on which reliance has been placed
by the petitioner, only contemplates that important administrative
matters shall be placed before the Chairperson. The respondents have
categorically stated on affidavit that the facts and circumstances
relating to the repatriation of the petitioner were duly brought to the
notice of the Chairman. The respondents have further stated that the
counter-affidavit has been filed after the same was duly briefed to the
Chairman. Thus, it is not the case that the Chairman has disowned the
impugned order.
16. Insofar as the contention regarding the competence of the
authority is concerned, the respondents have placed on record the
Gazette Notification dated 18.01.1999, as per which the Secretary
NCSC is the appointing as well as the disciplinary authority for
‘Group B’ posts. In view of the order passed herein, this court does
not consider it necessary to go into this aspect.
17. The respondents have not disputed that a copy of the report of
the ICC was not furnished to the petitioner before the impugned order
was passed. Section 13 of the POSH Act contemplates that the report
of the ICC shall be made available to the concerned parties. Further,
the respondents themselves state that the proceedings under the POSH
Act have not attained finality. In such circumstances, the petitioner
could not have been visited with an order founded on the said
allegations, without being furnished with a copy of the report and
without being afforded any opportunity of being heard.
18. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the same is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 6 of 10
an order of repatriation simpliciter. The order expressly records that
the petitioner is being repatriated ‘in view of the allegations and the
enquiry conducted under the POSH Act’ . The respondents in the
Counter-Affidavit have also stated that the ICC had recommended
disciplinary action against the petitioner and, instead of acting upon
the same, the competent authority chose to repatriate the petitioner.
19. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the
challenge to the aforesaid limited point, it would be apposite to also
deal with the contention raised in the petition that the impugned order
has been passed without the advance notice of three months
contemplated under Para 9 of the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010, which
reads as under:
“9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre.
Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign
service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent
Ministry/ Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and
when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre
of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving
an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/
Department and the employee concerned.”
20. A plain reading of Para 9 shows that the same governs
premature reversion of a deputationist . It provides that, for premature
reversion, the services of the deputationist “could be so returned”
after giving an advance notice of three months. The object of the
provision is to enable the lending department to plan for the return of
the officer and to enable the employee to make arrangements for the
same. The said provision cannot be read to compel the borrowing
department to retain a deputationist in the same workplace for a
further period of three months, where his continuance itself is the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 7 of 10
cause of concern.
21. The present case does not fall in the ordinary category of
premature reversion. It is borne out from the record that the complaint
against the petitioner was made by a colleague working in the NCSC
itself, and the respondents have stated that the same pertains to
continued sexual harassment. The ICC, after conducting the inquiry,
had recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the
petitioner. The respondents have further explained that, instead of
initiating disciplinary proceedings, the competent authority, “in order
to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings, ensure a fair and
impartial process, protect the interests of the complainant, and
maintain institutional discipline” , adopted a lenient view by merely
repatriating the petitioner in the larger interest of the Commission.
22. It is relevant to note Section 19(a) of the POSH Act casts a duty
upon every employer to provide a safe working environment at the
workplace, which includes safety from the persons coming into
contact at the workplace. The POSH Act also recognises, in Section
12, that the respondent to a complaint may be transferred to another
workplace even during the pendency of an inquiry. The repatriation of
the petitioner with immediate effect was, thus, a protective measure
taken in the interest of the workplace Section 12 and Section 19(a) of
POSH Act read as under:
“ 12. Action during pendency of inquiry . -(1) During the pendency
of an inquiry on a written request made by the aggrieved woman,
the Internal Committee or the local Committee, as the case may be,
may recommend to the employer to-
(a) transfer the aggrieved woman or the respondent to any other
workplace ; or
(b) grant leave to the aggrieved woman up to a period of three
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 8 of 10
months; or
(c) grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman a may be
prescribed.
(2) The leave granted to the aggrieved woman under this section
shall be in addition to the leave she would be otherwise entitled.
(3) On the recommendation of the Internal Committee or the Local
Committee, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the
employer shall implement the recommendations made under sub-
section (1) and send the report of such implementation to the
Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be.
19. Duties of employer. Every employer shall -
(a) provide a safe working environment at the workplace with shall
include safety from the persons coming into contact at the
workplace.”
23. In the present case, the respondents did not act merely on a
prima facie satisfaction, but upon the recommendation of the ICC
made after an inquiry under the POSH Act.
24. Even otherwise, more than three months have elapsed since
passing of the impugned office order dated 19.06.2026. During the
pendency of the present petition, it was directed by this Court vide
order dated 08.07.2026, that the petitioner be considered to be on
leave in the department concerned. Considering the aforesaid, in the
opinion of this Court, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to
the petitioner by not receiving an advance notice of 3 months before
passing of the impugned order.
25. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present
petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
26. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the allegations made against the petitioner under the
POSH Act, and the observations made hereinabove are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 9 of 10
27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52
W.P.(C) 8678/2026 Page 10 of 10