Deputation / absorption of any employee
Chandrakant Nimje
(Querist) 01 August 2012
This query is : Resolved
One of the deputationist of Group A officer changed the recruitment rules for himself and manage to the ministry staff and UPSC members for recruitment.
Further, after changing recruitment rules Second Advertisement was circulated on 27-06-2011 by the Ministry, such official who was already on deputation applied for the same post as absorption basis because first advertisement was deputation basis. That Official application was forwarded by the Maharashtra Government on 24-10-2012.
As per Maharashtra State civil service rule maximum deputation period on foreign service is four years only. After ending of such tenure of deputation Cheif Minister's permission is necessary to further extention of deputation.
That official is repatriated on 25-01-2012 as per Maharashtra state office order dated 19-01-2012 because not allowed such official to further extention of deputation period by the Maharashtra Government as per their Civil Services rules.
After repatriation of such official interview was called by the Ministry, New Delhi on 30-01-2012 for absorption of post, but after repatriation of any official cooling off period is manadatory for Central Government Employee and vice versa.
Meanwhile such official wilfully taken leave on 24-01-2012 for interview and reptriated on 25-01-2012 and joined his parent office on 01-02-2012.
Moreover, after interview of such official ministry has been considered him for absorption. Not followed the DoPT order of cooling off period and Mantralaya also considered his case after six months to join first deputation beyond the fourth year on 30-07-2012 and not followed the civil rules to the absorption of first deputation post.
Such case is coming under corruption because any officer relaxed rules to benefit of others.
Whether such case is fit for vigilance case and writ petition of quo waranto. Kindly provide the valuable guidance.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 02 August 2012
The very beginning sentence of your query is provocative and hard to believe :-
You said
“One of the deputationist of Group A officer changed the recruitment rules for himself and manage to the ministry staff and UPSC members for recruitment.”
A Gp_A officer is not competent to change RRs. This change is incorporated by a series of deliberations with UPSC/DOPT etc and approved at Minster level. Once the RR is framed it is not per-se challengeable unless violative of constitution. Please do not attempt anyone to believ that he managed UPSC member (even if he may have) as you cannot prove it.
You description indicates that the following this happened :-
(i) He was on deputation.
(ii) RR for the post changed to direct recruitment.
(iii) He was eligible to apply as per new RR.
(iv) He applied and got selected.
(v) He was suitable in the opinion of the dpett as they have continued him for five years.
(vi) In the meanwhile his deputation tenure expired and he honourabley joined parent office and joined back on being selected.
(vii) After completion of deputation he could have taken 6 weeks leave but took only one week (it could have been even joining time)
(viii) Since his second entry is not a deputation the concept of cooling off did not apply.
(ix) Even if the cooling off was waived it is not challangebale.
The process per-se appears to be within the framework and you have not been able to put forth any irregularity. He as well as his supporters probably knew as to what procedure should be followed.
The writ quo-warranto can be raised if (i) appointment was without rules (ii) existing rules were not correctly applied (iii) Appointment was without procedure (iv) Appointment was not approved by competent authority….etc.
Guest
(Expert) 02 August 2012
Mr. Nimje,
If you are pretty sure that the officer in question contributed to get the rules changed to his benefit, certainly that is a case of deliberate misuse of power to get himself accommodated on the post and a fit case for vigilance investigation.
Chandrakant Nimje
(Querist) 02 August 2012
Recruitment was only for deputation/absorption/promotion, not for direct recruitment
Guest
(Expert) 02 August 2012
Dear Sudhir,
Your reaction on the query of the querist is not understood, when you know well that nothing is impossible in the Government organisations.
Of course, you are correct to the extent that a Gp_A officer is not competent to change RRs and the change is incorporated by a series of deliberations with UPSC/DOPT etc and approved at Minster level. But, it cannot be denied that the rules are drafted or got draftyed at the whims and fancies of the Group-A officers. Favouritism and nepotism is at the extreme in Government organisations. In my views, most of the Rules are framed or modified to keep a single person in view and the same are enforced on all others.
When rules are designed perfectly by justifying the the proposal to moot the hidden intentions, normally UPSC or DOPT either don't raise any objection or raise just a few trivial queries to justify thir own contributions.
You will know or will be able to know gradually that when the rules are made with good intentions, they normally contain several drawbacks and attract several objections from the authorities at different levels. But when the rules are made or changed with some ill-intenion those are framed meticulously to perfectly justify the proposal for the purpose of smooth sailing.
I have often heard the direct group-A officers or secretariate personnel saying:
- We are the rule making authority, and
- You show me the person, I show you the rule (to favour or disfavour any official).
So, you will definitely learn about such disparaging events by the passage of each spell of your service in different offices or organisations.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 August 2012
Dear Mr Dhingra,
The series of events explained by the queries indicates per-se that the lawful procedure has been followed by the officer and all concerned.
He may be felling wronged up but given facts do not prove so.
You have a logic in what you are saying but such manipulations need to be proved. Fortunately he has the benefit of RTI.
He can get the copies of all relevant papers from central/state Govt, leading to the revision of RR, his absorption etc. Without these papers I am not inclined to borrow the thought that (i) there is irregularity and (ii) this is proveable.
Chandrakant Nimje
(Querist) 03 August 2012
I am sending rule positon of deputation / absorption basis.
1) Central Government Servants :- DoPT O.M.
No. 61812009-Estt. (Pay II), New Delhi the 17" June, 2010 some points as follows.
"8.3.1 The borrowing MinistriedDepartments/Organisations may extend the period of
deputation upto the fifth year where absolutely necessary in public interest, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The extension would be subject to the prior approval of the lending organisation, the
consent of the official concerned and wherever necessary, the approval of the UPSCI State
Public Service Commission and Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC).
(ii) If the borrowing organisation wishes to retain an officer beyond the prescribed
tenure, it shall initiate action for seeking concurrence of lending organisation, individual
concerned etc. six months before the date of expiry of tenure. In no case it should retain an
official beyond the sanctioned tem unless prior approval of the competent authority to grant
further extension has been obtained.
(iii) No further extension beyond the fifth year shall be considered
and
8.4 There shall be a mandatory 'cooling off period of three years after every period of
deputation of foreign service up to Joint Secretary level posts and one year for Additional
Secretary level posts.
2) Maharashtra state rule :-
APPNDIX III
(See rule 40)
Guide lines for transfer of Government servant to foreign service.
The following are the guidelines which should be observed by the authority competent to transfer a Government servant to foreign service, and by the foreign employer.
Period of deputation:- The maximum period for which the Government servant will be permitted to be on deputation in foreign service is four years. Extension beyond this period will be with specific approval of the Chief Minister. No deputation allowance will be allowed for such extension , if agreed to by the Chief Minister. On his reversion to the parent department, he will not again be permitted to on deputation within a period of four years.
3) Joining time in Central Govt. Service :-
2. The Staff Side of the Departmental Council (JCM) of DOP&T have
demanded that direct recruits may be allowed a maximum of three months for
joining instead of nine months provided for in the O.M. under reference so as to
avoid delay in preparation and issue of select/seniority list. The matter has been
examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided to reduce from
nine months to six months the maximum time upto which an offer of appointment
can be kept to open. In other words, an offer of appointment should clearly specify
the period (which shall not normally exceed one or two months) after which the
offer would lapse automatically if the candidate did not join within the specified
period. If however, within the specified period, a request is received from the
candidate for extension of time, it may be considered by the Ministries/Departments
but extension beyond three months should not be granted liberally and it may be
granted only as an exception where facts and circumstances so warrant and in any
case only upto a maximum of six months from the date of issue of the original offer
of a appointment. An offer of appointment would lapse automatically after the
expiry of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of appointment.
Now, My question is :-
1) whether the Ministry has power to waived cooling off period because this case is repatriation of employee.
2) whether the employee himself is applied to extension of deputation period only three months but he has been allowed six months and 9days without approval as per above rules.
3)Whether the joining time allowed to absorption post because this is not direct recruitment advertisement.
4) Whether the after repatriation state govt. has power to allow after fourth year deputation without taking approval of chief minister and concerned minister.
Case Cycle Dated :-
1) Gazette for modified RR published :- April 2011.
2) Advertisement :- June 2011.
3) Application forwarded by foreign employer within two months.
4) Application forwarded by State Govt. in October, 2011
5) Repatriation order issued by state govt. on 19-01-2012.
6) Chief Administrative Officer repatriated on 25-01-2012.
7) He applied leave and sanctioned by foreign employer from 25-01-2012 to 31-01-2012.
8) He attended interview on 30-01-2012 at Ministry, New Delhi.
9) He joined his parent department on 01-02-2012.
10) He joined again as Chief Administrative Officer on 01-08-2012.
Whether it was pre-planned recruitment.
Guest
(Expert) 03 August 2012
Dear Sudhir,
When important documents are tried to be manipulated, those are tried to be made so foolproof that on general view every one can think that lawful procedure has been followed. But, if knowingly someone keeps silent the event can become the source of unlimited corruption. If Mr. Nimje has proof that the same officer was involved in drafting/revision of the rules and later took advantage of the same the man can be caught easily by the vigilance.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 August 2012
It is easy to detect a fraud and not always easy to prove it. Available facts who that it is a formidable battle. I say so coolly whether one may like it or not. The impression may change if some more facts are introduced.
No doubt that it appears to be a pre-planned recruitment. But unfortunately this appears to have been done in a legal manner.
At times such overconfident persons leave evidence of manipulation in noting which can be handy for the querist. For that he has to exercise RTI.
If the querist can prove that there were better candidates available he can do something. But for that RTI may have to be exercised as I have commented above.
Querist has not indicated whether he himself was a contender for he post or otherwise affected by this selection.
Guest
(Expert) 04 August 2012
Let the querist prove if he has any evidence in his possession. Why should we guess anyway?
Chandrakant Nimje
(Querist) 04 August 2012
Thank you sir,
I have following documents which are collected by me through RTI.
1) Ministry RTI Reply is as under :-
a) Whether any relaxation involved, if so, whether DoPT approval taken for recruitment of Chief Administrative Officer ---- NO
b) Whether relaxation indicated in the vacancy circular ---- Not Applicable
c) I have received vacancy circular.
d) List of candidates from which two candidates only were selected by the Ministry for the Interview including deputationist.
2) UPSC RTI reply is an under :-
a)There is no provision for cooling off period from deputation to absorption.
3) Organisation RTI reply is as under :-
a) Repatriation letter dated 25-01-2012.
b) Requesting letter for extention of term of deputation to both Ministry and Mantralaya as deputation tenure end on 21-01-2012 before interview.
b) Deputationist written letter after completion of four year deputation to parent department for extention of tenure only 3 months or till the post of CAO is filled whichever is earlier .
c) Mantralaya letter for ending of deputation tenure.
4) Mantralaya RTI reply is as under :-
a) They have given information only application forwarded but 'NOC' given is silent.
b) They have given information regarding rule position of after reversion to the parent department, he will not again be permitted to on deputation within a period of four years.
My question is as under :-
1) If deputation is ended before the interview of absorption, then absorption is possible because recruitment base is deputation only for absorption.
2) If State Govt. has no rule that after reversion from deputation then only absorption case may be considered within four years.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 August 2012
Could you please not get the revised recruitment rules. This document is vital to your curiousities.
Chandrakant Nimje
(Querist) 05 August 2012
Thank you sir,
I have obtained gazette copy which is revised recruitment rules. It is drafted by deputationist as the capacity of Chief Administrative Officer for himself and got benefit from the Revised Recruitment Rules.
Many year the CAO post was deputation post because it was sensitive post but RR revised for himself.
whether it attracts vigilance case.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 August 2012
You may also get a copy of the noting leading to revision of RR. Pl see whether any vital information has been withheld.
