MP High Court: a 'borrowing' department loses power to discipline an employee after repatriation

A police Sub-Inspector attached to the Special Armed Force (SAF) was sent to the Special Task Force (STF) in 2019 and repatriated to SAF in 2020. Over five years after his repatriation, STF issued him a charge-sheet in 2025 alleging misconduct during his STF posting, and in 2026 appointed an enquiry officer. In a near-identical case arising from the same incident, STF had itself recalled a charge-sheet issued to another repatriated officer on the ground that it no longer had jurisdiction over him. The State argued SAF and STF were merely different wings of the same police department under the Director General of Police, so no "deputation" or loss of jurisdiction had occurred.

The High Court held, following its earlier decision in B.L. Satyarthi v. State of M.P. (2015) on Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, that a borrowing department's power to take disciplinary action lasts only as long as the temporary master-servant relationship created by deputation subsists; once the employee is repatriated, that relationship ends and the borrowing department loses authority to proceed against him. A government order on specialised units like the Anti-Terrorism Squad itself provided for staffing by deputation, confirming SAF and STF were distinct units for this purpose. The charge-sheet and the enquiry order were quashed.