Repatriation

2021 PLC(CS) 777 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

ESTACODE, 1989 Edition, Srl. No. 28DeputationTenure, completion ofRepatriationPrincipleDeputationist may not necessarily complete tenure for which he/she was sent on deputationPower is vested with competent authority to repatriate a deputationist without assigning any reasonTransfer on deputationNo vested right accrues to a deputationist to continue for period of deputation

Competent authority is empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when exigencies of service require.

2020 PLC(CS) 1574 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Appointment on the basis of deputationRepatriationScope

Contention of employee was that his services had been surrendered to the borrowing department and he could not be repatriated to his parent department

Validity

Employee had never been absorbed nor he could be deemed to have ever been absorbed in the borrowing department

Service of employee could not be surrendered unilaterally to the borrowing department

Decision of absorption of employee could not be taken by the borrowing department unilaterally nor had it ever taken such a decision

Employee had been placed under the control of borrowing department on deputation in the present case

Employee had no right for further retention in the borrowing department as it did not need his services

Employee could not be thrusted upon the borrowing department any further

Employee had been repatriated to his parent department and no prejudice had been caused to him

Employee had failed to established violation of any law, rules or infringement of any right due to passing of impugned order

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 772 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 2(bb) & 3(b)Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, R.2(g)Civil serviceDeputation­RepatriationSenior Clerk in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial)Charge of misconductRefusal of parent department to allow the employee to join the said departmentScope

­Petitioner-employee was repatriated to his parent department but he was not allowed to join the same on the ground that no vacant post was available

Contention of department was that petitioner-employee was transferred on the ground of misconduct and corrupt practices

Sindh Service Tribunal transferred the matter to the Registrar of High Court for placing the appeal of petitioner-employee before the Tribunal constituted for the members of Subordinate Judiciary-Validity- Once repatriation order was passed and conveyed, it should have been acted upon immediately

No inquiry or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner-employee

Repatriation o.-der was passed to implement the judgment of Supreme Court

Allegation of misconduct could be taken into consideration once the petitioner-employee was allowed to join the department

Petitioner-employee could not be shorn of joining his parent department in the anticipation of future misconduct proceedings if any

Petitioner-employee was not member of subordinate judiciary

No appeal of petitioner-employee would lie to the Tribunal meant for the members of subordinate judiciary

Administrative control of petitioner-employee would vest in the Provincial Government

Present was a matter of repatriation in the parent department which had nothing with the terms and conditions of service nor any final order was available to assail the same

Direction of Service Tribunal to fix the matter in the Tribunal constituted for the members of Subordinate Judiciary was coram non judice

Department was directed to allow the petitioner-employee to join his parent depart ment

Competent authority would be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-employee on the charge of misconduct if any

Department was further directed to release/pay the salary of the employee immediately

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

2015 PLC(CS) 1324 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Fundamental Rules, R.29Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974), S.4Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.4(1)(e)Transfer on deputationRepatriationAbsence from dutyMajor penalty of reduction in rank

Appellant who was employee of Balochistan Police Department, was transferred to ICT Islamabad Traffic Police on deputation for a period of 3 years; which period was extended for another two years

Appellant was repatriated to his parent department after completion of tenure

Appellant reported to Balochistan Police Department, but after availing the joining period he absented himself from his place of duty for about 2-1/2 years

Appellant was imposed major penalty of reduction in rank (demotion from the rank of Inspector to Sub-Inspector)

Validity

Absence period of 2-1/2 years, had been declared and treated as extraordinary leave without pay by competent authority

Imposition of punishment of reduction to a lower grade, without specifying the period of punishment, being in violation of Fundamental Rules, R.29, which could not be sustained

Punishment, inflicted on the appellant, was restricted for a period of few years only

Penalty imposed be restricted to some specific period

Department was directed to specify the period for which the penalty in question would remain in field

Appeal was accepted, and impugned order was set aside accordingly.

2007 PLC(CS) 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceAppointmentAdjustment in other departmentRepatriation

Petitioner initially was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar in Directorate of Housing and Physical Planning; on abolition of said Department he was adjusted in Revenue Department as Additional Naib-Tehsildar against a vacant post

Subsequently when parent department of petitioner was revived, he was repatriated to said department

Petitioner aggrieved from said order of repatriation had filed constitutional petition against said order

Validity

Petitioner was adjusted against a vacant post in Revenue Department on abolition of his parent department; but was not absorbed in Revenue Department

Government servants of Revenue Department were governed by Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990, which had provided a procedure, method and manner for recruitment of Naib-Tehsildar

No other rules or provision of law existed which could authorize District Co-ordination Officer or other high-ups of Revenue Department to violate said Rules

District Government Rules of Business, 2001 could not be invoked to change the specific and particular method and character

Petitioner was being repatriated to his parent department, which he had himself chosen for his service at the inception for which he should not hesitate to accept.