Repatriation order prompts tribunal to direct authorities to consider the applicant's representation.

The applicant, Totan Kumar Saha, working as Junior Intelligence Officer-I (Executive) in the Intelligence Bureau on deputation from Sashastra Seem Bal (SSB), was posted at the Bureau of Immigration at Haridaspur Border

His deputation started on May 31, 2022, for an initial period of five years

In September 2025, he received a show-cause notice, to which he responded on September 19, 2025

Subsequently, a one-month notice for his repatriation to his parent cadre was issued on November 28, 2025

The applicant filed a representation against this order on December 16, 2025

The respondents contended that the applicant committed serious misconduct by allowing an unauthorized foreign national entry into the country while on duty at the immigration post

and that he had already been released from his present post after the show-cause notice

The applicant's counsel argued that the repatriation order lacked stated grounds, making it unlawful, and cited a Calcutta High Court judgment stating that a deputationist with a fixed tenure should not be repatriated without just grounds such as unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance

The respondents' counsel cited a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment to emphasize that a deputationist can be repatriated before tenure completion

and noted that the applicant's representation was still pending

During the hearing, the applicant's counsel requested the deletion of Respondent No. 6, Assistant Director, Bureau of Immigration, from the array of respondents, which was allowed

1. Whether the order of repatriation dated November 28, 2025, is bad in law for not stating any grounds for the decision

2. Whether the applicant should be allowed to continue and complete the remaining period of his service with the Intelligence Bureau

3. Whether the pending representation of the applicant against the repatriation order requires consideration and disposal by the respondent authorities

The Tribunal implicitly acknowledged the principle that administrative actions should ordinarily provide reasons for decisions affecting an individual, especially when a representation has been made against such action

It further recognized the importance of considering and disposing of, in a timely manner, representations made by individuals against official orders

While the applicant cited a Calcutta High Court judgment regarding restrictions on premature repatriation of deputationists with fixed tenures

and the respondents cited a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment supporting premature repatriation

the Tribunal did not directly apply these precedents but focused on the procedural aspect of the pending representation.

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the repatriation order or the specific legal precedents cited by either side regarding the premature termination of deputation, prioritized the procedural requirement of justice.

It noted that the applicant had made a representation dated December 16, 2025, against the repatriation order

and that this representation was still pending with the authorities

The core of the Tribunal's reasoning was that the authorities should consider and dispose of such representations before a final decision could be effectively implemented or challenged

This approach allows the administrative authorities to first address the applicant's grievances internally and articulate their reasons, providing a clearer basis for any subsequent judicial review.

The Tribunal did not issue an order recalling or rescinding the repatriation order dated November 28, 2025, nor did it direct the applicant's continuation in the Intelligence Bureau at this stage

There was no order as to costs