Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: 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