Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3015 (RAJ)

Union of India v. R. L. Patel

2005-11-17

RAJESH BALIA, S.N.JHA

body2005
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition by Union of India and the officials of the Department of Posts is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 05.07.2005 in OA No. 136/2005 allowing the application of the respondent and setting aside the order of his transfer. By the order impugned the respondent had been transferred for Udaipur to Kekri on the post of Inspector of Post Offices. 2. The case of the respondent is that in January, 2003 he was transferred to Udaipur on his request. As per the rules the tenure on the post of Inspector of Post Offices is four years, and the person can be transferred earlier only in public interest. No such public interest was involved in the instant case. His two sons are studying in the Senior Secondary with Science as subjects but at Kekri there is no Science College where they can prosecute their studies at the graduation level. His wife frequently becomes unconscious and she requires medical aid but adequate facility is not available at Kekri. Kekri falls in Beawar division where one Shri R.L. Meena is posted as Superintendent of Post Offices. Being inimical to him, the respondent apprehends unwarranted harassment at his hands. He filed OA Nos. 302, 303 and 304/2003 before the Tribunal alleging mala fides against Shri R.L. Meena and those OAs are still pending. Six posts of Inspector of Post Offices are lying vacant in the region but he alone has been picked up for posting in Beawar division. A draft charge-sheet was issued to him and Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Udaipur was asked to serve the same on him but Respondent No. 4 did not serve the charge-sheet; instead, he informed the authorities that no such action was warranted. The respondent alleged that the impugned order had been passed to facilitate service of charge-sheet through Shri R.L. Meena. In these circumstances, according to the respondent, the order of transfer dated 11.05.2005 deserves to be quashed. 3. The appellants in their reply submitted that the respondent has been transferred taking into consideration the administrative exigencies and public interest and stated facts in that regard. They refuted the contention of the respondent that an employee cannot be transferred before expiry of tenure at a particular place, even if administrative exigency demands transfer. 3. The appellants in their reply submitted that the respondent has been transferred taking into consideration the administrative exigencies and public interest and stated facts in that regard. They refuted the contention of the respondent that an employee cannot be transferred before expiry of tenure at a particular place, even if administrative exigency demands transfer. The transfer order was issued by the competent authority and Shri R.L. Meena has nothing to do with it. In any case, he is not party to the proceeding and, therefore, allegation of mala fide cannot be gone into. The matter relating to issuance/service of charge-sheet on the respondent is a distinct matter which would be dealt with by the competent authority at the appropriate level. 4. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondent that the transfer was mala fide or that it had been engineered by Shri R.L. Meena. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that the transfer was made as Respondent No. 4 was not inclined to serve the charge-sheet. The Tribunal also observed that the provision relating to tenure of four years was directory in nature but took the view that there should be justification for making deviation from any directory provision. While considering the question of administrative exigency and public interest the Tribunal observed that the respondent was neither the longest or the shortest stayee in the region and he had been picked up and posted to a post which was lying vacant since October, 2002. The Tribunal observed that it looks quite abnormal as to why it had been decided to fill-up only one post, and that too at Kekri, by transferring the respondent when there was similar administrative exigency of fulfilling the target in other places too. The Tribunal found substance in the case of the respondent that his transfer during the mid academic session of his sons was not justified, more, so, when none of them had taken admission in the Science College/next higher class. It observed that “transfer can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to an employee and drive him into desperation. Therefore, the exercise of the power of transfer must be just and fair.” The Tribunal place reliance on Seshrao Nagorao Umap vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (II) LLJ 73. It observed that “transfer can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to an employee and drive him into desperation. Therefore, the exercise of the power of transfer must be just and fair.” The Tribunal place reliance on Seshrao Nagorao Umap vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (II) LLJ 73. It also noticed the decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. Director, Sheep & Wool, Rajasthan & Ors, 1992 (2) RLR 441 and of the Supreme Court in Ramadhar Pandey vs. State of UP & Ors, 1993 (4) SLR 349, relied upon on behalf of the respondent. 5. At this stage, it may be mentioned that while explaining the administrative exigency and public interest the petitioners stated that in Udaipur Postal Division there are nine Supervisors to look after the administrative and field duties pertaining to postal operations. Though the respondent belongs to the cadre of Inspector of Posts, he was simply performing the limited head quarter duty in the Divisional Office Udaipur as Inspector, Posts (PG). Whereas the work of Inspector Posts (PG) is limited only to investigation into few public complaints, his colleagues performing the field duty as Inspector Posts and Assistant Superintendent Posts Incharge of Sub-Division do the whole lot of field/operative jobs ranging from inspections of posts offices, appointments of Gramin Dak Sewak and procurement of business with regard to specific targets related to premium products of the Department under the umbrella of Business development. They have territorial jurisdiction over dozen of Post Offices spread out in large geographical areas. The work of Kekri Sub-Division was suffering and the Beawar Postal Division had been showing disappointing results in achieving the targets in respect of premium products since, 2002. In these circumstances it was considered expedient and prudent to fill up the post of Inspector Posts, Kekri which was lying vacant since 010.2002. The transfer of the respondent from Udaipur to Kekri thus was purely in the interest of service so that he could endeavour to achieve the Sub-Divisional targets in addition to performing the mandatory field duties. While passing the order, it was also taken into consideration that the work of Udaipur postal division can be managed with available Supervisors without any difficulty. 6. We heard Shri V.K. Mathur for the petitioners and Shri Vijay Mehta for the respondent. While passing the order, it was also taken into consideration that the work of Udaipur postal division can be managed with available Supervisors without any difficulty. 6. We heard Shri V.K. Mathur for the petitioners and Shri Vijay Mehta for the respondent. After hearing Counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the Tribunal mis-directed itself in interfering with the transfer order. 7. The scope of judicial review against orders of transfer and postings is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. The order of transfer can be interfered with only if it is made in violation of mandatory statutory rule or on some extraneous consideration or is found to be mala fide. In other cases, if the person is not satisfied with his transfer, the only option is to make representation to the competent authority. Reference may be made to Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 1991 Sup (2) SCC 659, Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & Anr., 1993 (1) SCC 148 and State of M.P. & Anr. vs. S.S. Kourav & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 270 . In the last case the Supreme Court rejecting the contention that the transfer would cause extreme hardship observed as under: - “The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate Forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation.” In Laxmi Narain Mehar vs. Union of India & Ors, 1997 (3) SCC 87 , the Court observed that where the transfer is made on account of administrative exigencies, namely, need of experienced staff at respective place, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The petitioner was however permitted to make representation for posting at nearby place. 8. In the facts and circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioners that the impugned transfer was made in administrative exigencies and we are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal committed error in interfering with the order. 9. The petitioner was however permitted to make representation for posting at nearby place. 8. In the facts and circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioners that the impugned transfer was made in administrative exigencies and we are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal committed error in interfering with the order. 9. In the result, the order of Tribunal dated 05.07.2005 is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. 10. This order will not stand in the way of the respondent in making representation for his transfer elsewhere in accordance with law.