Court rules borrowing department lacks authority post-repatriation; Sets aside disciplinary proceedings against SAF officer
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a departmental charge-sheet issued by the Special Task Force (STF) against Kanhailal Samadhiya, an officer repatriated to the Special Armed Force (SAF). The court held that once an employee is repatriated, the borrowing department loses authority to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings.
Presiding over the case, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat delivered the judgment on September 29, 2026, in the writ petition filed by Kanhailal Samadhiya, who challenged the charge-sheet dated May 2, 2025, and the subsequent appointment of an Enquiry Officer by the STF. The petitioner argued that the STF had no jurisdiction to proceed against him after his repatriation to his parent unit, SAF, in February 2020.
The court examined Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which governs disciplinary actions against government servants on deputation. Justice Bahrawat emphasized that the borrowing department's authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings subsists only as long as the master-servant relationship is maintained. The court cited a precedent in the case of B.L. Satyarthi v. State of M.P., which established that the borrowing department loses jurisdiction to take disciplinary action once an employee is repatriated to the parent department.
The court rejected the respondents' contention that STF is merely a part of the police department and not a separate entity, thereby invalidating the notion of deputation. The judgment highlighted that specialized units like the STF are treated as separate entities for deputation purposes, as evidenced by the ATS Deputation/Induction Rules, 2008, which recognize such arrangements.
The court's decision also took into account the inconsistent approach of the STF, which had previously recalled a charge-sheet against another officer, Shri Manna Singh, under similar circumstances. The court found this disparity in treatment arbitrary and in violation of established rules.
Consequently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed both the charge-sheet and the order appointing an Enquiry Officer, with the liberty granted to the respondents to initiate appropriate actions in accordance with the law if deemed necessary.
This ruling underscores the importance of jurisdictional authority in departmental proceedings and reaffirms the protection of employees' rights post-repatriation.
Bottom Line :
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Borrowing department cannot issue charge-sheet or continue disciplinary proceedings after employee has been repatriated to parent department - Charge-sheet and appointment of Enquiry Officer by STF after repatriation from SAF held without jurisdiction and set aside.
Statutory provision(s):
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 Rule 20, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
