In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has cleared the way for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to take disciplinary action against a senior IPS officer couple for overstaying their sanctioned deputation by 16 months. The court set aside an order from the Hyderabad Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had previously shielded the officers from penalties.
Court Restores MHA's Authority
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, in its order dated December 24, restored an MHA memorandum that had termed the officers' extended service as "unauthorised." This allows the central ministry to proceed with its administrative proceedings against the duo.
The officers in question are D Kalpana Nayak, a 1998-batch officer currently serving as Additional Director General of Police in the CID, and her husband Mahender Kumar Rathod, a 2001-batch officer holding an Inspector General rank. Both were originally sent on an inter-cadre deputation to the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh in 2011 for a five-year term.
The Case of the Unauthorised Extension
Their sanctioned tenure officially ended in January 2016. However, they continued to serve in the newly formed state of Telangana until May 2017, leading the MHA to initiate action. The potential consequences for the couple include the loss of service increments and the recovery of excess payments made to them during the overstay period.
In their defence, the officers argued that the delay in their repatriation was due to administrative necessities and a critical shortage of senior officers in Telangana following the state's bifurcation. Their counsel also contended that they were acting under "explicit directions from the state government."
HC Emphasizes Central Government's Exclusive Power
The High Court, however, firmly dismissed these arguments. The bench emphasized that under the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the central government holds exclusive authority over the movement of cadre officers. The court stated that a borrowing state—whether the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh or Telangana—has no power to unilaterally extend a deputation beyond the period sanctioned by the Centre.
The judgment pointedly noted that the request for their extension was initiated by the officers themselves through individual representations. It observed that as senior All-India Service officers, the couple was obligated to ensure strict compliance with central government orders and to report any procedural delays to the MHA promptly.
The court ruled that failure to adhere to these protocols attracted necessary administrative consequences to uphold the rule of law. It clarified that the government's action was a "regulatory consequence intended to maintain the integrity of the cadre system" and not merely a punitive measure. The bench concluded that considerations of fairness could not override mandatory statutory law, thereby ruling in favour of the MHA's position.
