Premature repatriation of a deputationist founded on undisclosed stigmatic grounds violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a permanent employee of the Council for Leather Exports (CLE), was appointed as Joint Director (Administration & Finance) on a transfer-on-deputation basis at the National Book Trust (NBT) for an initial period of three years starting March 31, 2017

On May 29, 2018, NBT issued a relieving order prematurely repatriating the Petitioner to CLE without citing specific reasons

Following the order, CLE initially refused to permit the Petitioner to join, leading to a period of service uncertainty

NBT justified the repatriation in its counter-affidavit by alleging the Petitioner was ineligible for the post, misrepresented CLE’s status as an autonomous body, and was subject to audit objections regarding financial irregularities in a previous stint at the Central Waqf Council

1. Whether the Council for Leather Exports (CLE) is an authority of the State under Article 12 and amenable to writ jurisdiction

2. Whether NBT’s premature repatriation order was a simple administrative action or a stigmatic order founded on undisclosed adverse material requiring a fair hearing

3. Whether NBT was mandated to follow the DoPT framework, specifically the three-month notice period for premature reversion

the principle that an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Supreme Court’s rulings in Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, which held that specified tenures should not be curtailed except on just grounds

Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, regarding the rights of a deputationist

the doctrine from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, asserting that administrative orders must be judged by the reasons recorded at the time of the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in an affidavit

the DoPT Office Memorandum dated June 17, 2010, which requires three months' notice for premature repatriation, was contractually binding as it was incorporated into the vacancy notice and appointment letter

The Court found that while a deputationist generally lacks an indefeasible right to complete a tenure, NBT’s action was not a "simple" repatriation. By justifying the action in court via allegations of ineligibility, misrepresentation, and financial embezzlement, NBT revealed that the order was founded on adverse, stigmatic material

Therefore, the order attracted the principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and an opportunity to be heard

The Court rejected NBT’s claim of "ineligibility" as an afterthought, noting that NBT had vetted the Petitioner's application and CLE's status throughout the selection process

It further observed that CLE’s refusal to accept the Petitioner's joining created an impermissible service vacuum, as the Petitioner’s lien remained with his parent organization

The Court concluded that NBT could not selectively apply the DoPT framework, having explicitly referenced it in the offer of appointment

The Court set aside the order for the limited purpose of granting monetary and consequential relief, as the original tenure had already expired. NBT was directed to: (i) regularize the period from May 30, 2018, to July 8, 2018, as continuous service; (ii) compute and pay all admissible dues (salary, deputation allowance, TA, and LTC) within six weeks; and (iii) transmit all service records and statutory remittances to CLE to ensure no break in the Petitioner's service benefits