1 2025:CGHC:44047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9263 of 2025 1 - Prabhat Patel S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Patel, Aged About 36 Years Currently Posted As Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Sdop) At Kharsia, District Raigarh, R/o. Near Railway Station, Police Chowki, Government Quarters, Kharsia, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Ngar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Sector 19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 30.07.2025, whereby petitioner along with other police official has been sent on SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.30 15:20:04 +0530 2 deputation in State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the order itself it is specifically mentioned that petitioner has been sent on deputation to another department. However, no consent was obtained before passing the order against petitioner. He contended that as the petitioner is sent in on deputation to another department, therefore, before passing an order sending petitioner on deputation prior consent of employee is mandatory. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Inder Singh & Ors., reported in (1997) 8 SCC 372, in case of Prasar Bharati & Ors. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 539 and in case of Sarita Singh Vs. Shree Infosoft Private Limited, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 65. He also submits that respondent No.1 is not having jurisdiction to pass any order sending the employee on deputation from one department to another. 3. Learned State counsel do not dispute the provision of obtaining consent for sending the employee from one department to another on deputation. He however, submits that petitioner has not approached the authorities and have directly filed this petition. If petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, he could have submitted representation before respondent No.1 and 2 and if such representation is submitted, it will be decided in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. Considering the grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner in the writ petition, of respondent No.1 is not having jurisdiction to issue an order sending petitioner on deputation and further that even if the petitioner ought to have been sent on deputation, no prior consent of petitioner has been obtained, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by counsel for petitioner, this petition is disposed off at this stage permitting petitioner to submit representation before respondents No.1 and 2 within a period of two weeks and if such representation is submitted, the concerned respondents shall consider and decide the representation keeping in mind the law in this regard expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Till the decision on representation, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to petitioner shall remain stayed. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observation and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika