A borrowing department cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings after an employee’s repatriation to the parent department.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Special Armed Force (SAF), was sent on deputation to the Special Task Force (STF) by order dated 21 August 2019 and repatriated to SAF on 13 February 2020.

On 2 May 2025, about five years after his repatriation, STF issued him a charge-sheet concerning alleged interference in an STF investigation; STF appointed an Enquiry Officer on 1 June 2026.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that STF lacked authority to proceed against him after repatriation. The State argued that STF and SAF were units of the same Police Department and that the petitioner had remained in the same employment.

Whether the borrowing department may initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, after an employee’s deputation has ended and the employee has been repatriated to the parent department.

Whether STF could proceed against the petitioner after repatriation on the ground that STF and SAF are units of the same Police Department.

Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 empowers a borrowing department to take disciplinary action against a government servant while the deputation-related master–servant relationship subsists; that authority ends when the employee is repatriated to the parent department.

The Court applied the Division Bench ruling in B.L. Satyarthi v. State of M.P., 2015(1) MPLJ, which interpreted Rule 20 to limit the borrowing department’s disciplinary powers to the period of deputation.

The Court also considered GOP No. 129/08, which provides for deputation to specialised police units, as supporting the treatment of such units as distinct for deputation purposes.

The Court found it admitted that the petitioner had been sent on deputation from SAF to STF and later repatriated to SAF, and that STF issued the charge-sheet years after repatriation.

Applying B.L. Satyarthi, the Court held that Rule 20’s authority depends on the borrowing department’s service relationship with the deputed employee and ceases when that relationship ends upon repatriation.

It rejected the State’s argument that STF’s place within the Police Department meant there had been no deputation: GOP No. 129/08 recognised deputation to specialised units, and the petitioner’s orders expressly described deputation and repatriation.

STF therefore lacked authority to issue the charge-sheet after the petitioner’s repatriation.

It set aside the charge-sheet dated 2 May 2025 and the order dated 1 June 2026 appointing the Enquiry Officer, while granting the respondents liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.