Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

CBI's Deputation Decision: Recruitment Rules and Past Actions Govern Absorption Eligibility: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) decision regarding the deputation and absorption of an officer, shedding light on the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and an individual's past actions.

The High Court observed that the petitioner, who applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) in CBI on both deputation and absorption bases, had not challenged the earlier decision of non-appointment on deputation. Instead, he applied for the same position when it became available again.

The Recruitment Rules allowed for the filling of 10% of Dy.SP posts in CBI through deputation or absorption. The Interview Board found the petitioner fit for deputation but not for absorption. No allegations of malafides were raised against the Board members.

The Delhi High Court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct showed his preference for deputation, as he had applied for it without protest. Furthermore, the maximum period for deputation was five years, but the petitioner had continued for nearly ten years.

The judgment underscored that absorption is a policy matter, but there must be justifiable reasons for rejection. In this case, the petitioner's non-absorption was consistent with the Recruitment Rules and not arbitrary.

The court cited the judgment in Kunal Nanda, emphasizing the need for justifiable reasons for rejection in deputation cases. It also referred to the judgment in Rameshwar Prasad, highlighting that a deputationist cannot seek absorption as a matter of right unless there are statutory rules governing it.

The court concluded that the petitioner's claim was dismissed, as the Recruitment Rules and his own actions supported the decision not to absorb him.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of following recruitment rules and past actions in determining eligibility for absorption in deputation cases.

 Date of Decision: 19 OCTOBER 2023

Sudhir Kumar  vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. 

         

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19-Oct-2023-Sudhir-Vs-CBI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News