Premature repatriation of a deputationist without prescribed notice and natural justice is invalid.

The applicants, employees of the Tamil Nadu Police, were serving on deputation with the Bureau of Immigration, Chennai.

K. Viswanathan joined as JIO-II/Executive on 1 June 2022, while V. Ramanathan joined as Sub-Inspector on 1 June 2023; their initial three-year deputation was subsequently extended to five years by order dated 16 December 2024.

On 28 May 2025, both applicants were prematurely repatriated to their parent department with immediate effect.

The orders, communicated through WhatsApp, did not disclose specific reasons and stated only that the repatriation was on “adverse grounds”.

The applicants contended that they had received no prior notice, hearing, charge-sheet, or departmental enquiry.

The respondents asserted that the repatriation followed allegations of serious misconduct, including acceptance of illegal gratification and monetary or other benefits from vessel masters and agents, and misuse of crew documents for personal gain.

The applicants challenged the repatriation orders and sought reinstatement in the deputation posts for the remaining period of their approved tenure.

Whether the applicants’ premature repatriation from deputation, without advance notice to them or their parent department, violated paragraph 9 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17 June 2010.

Whether an order of premature repatriation based on alleged misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, or adverse conduct could be passed without disclosing specific reasons or affording an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the impugned repatriation orders dated 28 May 2025 were illegal and stigmatic, warranting their setting aside.

The Tribunal applied paragraph 9 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17 June 2010, which requires advance notice of at least three months to the lending department and the deputationist before premature reversion to the parent cadre.

Although the respondents relied on a subsequent DoPT relaxation reducing the notice period to one month for the Bureau of Immigration, they also contended that immediate repatriation may be ordered in cases involving serious integrity or national-security concerns.

The Tribunal further relied on Union of India through Government of Pondicherry v. V. Ramakrishnan, MANU/SC/1108/2005, wherein the Supreme Court held that, where the tenure of deputation is specified, it should ordinarily not be curtailed except on just grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance, and that premature reversion may be questioned where it is mala fide or undertaken in a post-haste manner.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing where the action is founded on allegations that cast a stigma on the employee’s integrity, conduct, or competence.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ five-year deputation tenure had been approved but was curtailed without any advance notice to either the applicants or their parent department, contrary to paragraph 9 of the DoPT Office Memorandum.

The respondents’ reply disclosed allegations of misconduct, lack of devotion to duty, and unsatisfactory performance, whereas the impugned orders merely referred to “adverse grounds” and contained no particulars.

Consequently, the repatriation was not a mere administrative return but acquired a stigmatic character because it potentially affected the applicants’ integrity, conduct, and competence.

Applying V. Ramakrishnan, the Tribunal held that a specified deputation tenure could not ordinarily be curtailed in a post-haste manner without procedural safeguards.

Since the respondents neither furnished specific reasons in the orders nor afforded the applicants an opportunity to respond, the orders violated both the prescribed deputation procedure and natural justice.

The respondents were directed to permit the applicants to rejoin within two weeks from receipt of the order, and the period from 28 May 2025 until their rejoining was directed to be treated as duty.

The respondents were, however, granted liberty to repatriate the applicants to their parent department in future by following the due process prescribed under the applicable DoPT instructions and the principles laid down by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

No order as to costs was made.