Repatriation from selection-based deputation requires a reasoned speaking order addressing the employee’s explanation.

The petitioner, substantively holding the post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak, was appointed on deputation as a Block Resource Center Coordinator (BRCC) on 28/12/2022 following a selection process

Per the recruitment advertisement, the deputation tenure was fixed for four years

Between September 2023 and January 2025, the respondents issued multiple show-cause notices alleging administrative inefficiency and misconduct under the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 24/01/2025

Subsequently, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 06/02/2025, repatriating the petitioner to his parent department on the grounds that his explanation was "not found satisfactory"

The petitioner challenged the order as non-speaking and a violation of his right to complete his selected tenure

1. Whether an official appointed on deputation via a selection process has a right to continue for the stipulated term unless found unsuitable through a fair procedure

2. Whether the repatriation order was vitiated by being a non-speaking order that failed to consider the petitioner’s specific explanations

The court primarily relied on the precedent in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India (2012) 7 SCC 757, which distinguishes "appointment on deputation" from "transfer on deputation," holding that the former cannot be terminated prematurely except on grounds of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance

The court further applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement for "speaking orders" as established in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 427, which mandates that administrative authorities must reflect an application of mind to the explanations provided by the noticee

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was selected through a competitive process, he held a legitimate right to continue on the post until December 2026, subject to satisfactory performance

While the respondents initiated show-cause proceedings, the court found that the final order was mechanically passed. The court noted that the petitioner had provided a "detailed explanation" to the allegations, yet the Collector, Morena (Respondent No. 2), dismissed it with the boilerplate phrase "not found satisfactory"

Citing Oryx Fisheries, the court held that such a conclusion without reasoning constitutes a non-speaking order and reflects a total non-application of mind

Consequently, the order failed the test of reasonableness and fairness required to terminate a selected deputation

While the court did not immediately restore the petitioner to the post of BRCC due to his intervening repatriation and joining at the parent department, it directed Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh, speaking order within 60 days after specifically considering the petitioner's explanation dated 24/01/2025. If the subsequent decision favors the petitioner, he is to be restored to his post as BRCC, Jan Shiksha Kendra, Morena