Repatriation After Competent Authority Approval Held Valid | HC

Case Details: Vukkem Rambabu vs. Union of India - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 515 (HC-Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Madhuresh Prasad & Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.
• Vukkem Rambabu for the Petitioner.
• Somnath Adhikary, Brajesh Jha, Sukanta Chakraborty & S. Saha for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was a Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He was appointed on deputation as Principal Private Secretary (PPS) at the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Kolkata. Within six months of his joining, the petitioner was served with a three-month’ (90-day) notice for repatriation to his parent department.

The petitioner approached the AFT by filing an application challenging the repatriation notice. The petitioner thereafter made a representation. While the petitioner’s representation was pending, he was relieved. The petitioner thereafter filed another application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed by the CAT.

The petitioner filed an instant writ petition challenging the order of the CAT. The petitioner submitted that his repatriation was without the approval of the Ministry of Defence.

It was noted that repatriation was with the approval of the competent authority, namely the Minister of Defence, Government of India. Further, the petitioner had not been able to show that the procedure for premature repatriation as contemplated in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 17-6-2010 had been violated.

High Court Held

The High Court held that it was apparent from the petitioner’s conduct at AFT that one could not find fault with the opinion of authorities that he was ‘unsuitable’ and that his conduct was ‘unsatisfactory’.

The High Court further held that no case was made out regarding the petitioner’s repatriation being done in a post-haste manner, so as to invite a presumption of repatriation being tainted with mala fide. Therefore, the instant writ petition was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench OA No. 29 of 2025 with MA 70 of 2025, dated 25-03-2025 (para 23) affirmed
• Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia (2004) 2 SCC 65 (para 19)
• Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 (para 20) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia (2004) 2 SCC 65 (para 7)
• Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 (para 7)
• Kunal Nanda v. Union of India 2000 taxmann.com 4066 (SC) (para 12)
• Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat 1990 (Supp) SCC 243 (para 12).