N K SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant N.K.Singh belongs to the Indian Police Service and is an officer of the 1961 batch allocated to the State cadre of Orissa. The appellant was posted as I.G., C.I.D. in Orissa when he was brought on deputation to an equivalent post of Joint Director in the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in February, 1990. By a notification dated 7-2-1990 issued by the Government of Orissa, the services of the appellant were placed on deputation to the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India for a period of five years and by notification dated 26-2-1990 issued by the Government of India he was appointed Joint Director in the C.B.I. until further orders w.e.f. 12-2-1990. The appellant was working in this capacity in the C.B.I. and was in charge of a Special Investigation Group conducting some sensitive investigations. By an order dated 21-3-1991 which was served on the appellant on 26-3-1991, the appellant was transferred from the post of Joint Director, C.B.I. to the Border Security Force (B.S.F.) in an equivalent post of I.G.P. Aggrieved by his transfer, from C.B.I. to B.S.F., the appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25-3-1991 challenging his transfer on certain grounds. The Tribunal has dismissed that application by the impugned order dated 5-4-1991. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) There is no dispute that the impugned transfer from C.B.I. to B.S.F., both of which are Central Police Organisations, has no adverse consequence on the service career and prospects of the appellant and the transfer of the appellant to B.S.F. was in an equivalent post of the rank of I.G.P. It has also been fairly stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not suffered any setback in his service career by this transfer in as much as he was promoted in due course in the B.S.F. in the year 1992 to the rank of Additional Director General of Police and then promoted further to the rank of Director General in the Bureau of Police Research and Development Branch of the B.S.F. in January 1994. The real grievance of the appellant ventilated by his learned counsel is that the appellant has been eased out of the sensitive post in the C.B.I. as incharge of the Speical Investigation Group investigating into the St. Kitts affair wherein there are allegations of forgery of some documents and of involvement in that forgery of some persons having political patronage, because of his impeccable reputation as an officer beyond approach. On this basis the transfer of the appellant from C.B.I. to B.S.F. is challenged on the ground of mala fides attributed mainly to the then Prime Minister of India, respondent No.2 Shri Chandrasekhar. It is further urged that the appellant's transfer from the C.B.I. is prejudicial to public interest since it is with a view to scuttle the sensitive investigation. The incidental reference to respondent No.3, Dr. Subramanyam Swami, the then Union Law Minister is not material and, therefore, does not merit any further reference. It must be placed on record that on behalf of the respondents, the calibre and high reputation of the appellant were not disputed but the allegation of mala fides was strongly refuted as also the alleged ulterior motive for the transfer while contending that the transfer of the appellant from C.B.I. to B.S.F. was due to exigencies of administration and not for the purpose of removing the appellant from the post he held in the C.B.I. Respondent No.2 while vehemently denying the allegation of mala fides has asserted that the appellant's transfer was a necessary incident of his service and the reasons in the isntant case are not judicially reviewable.

(3.) The Central Administrative Tribunal has rejected the appellant's application without even requiring counter-affidavits to be filed by the respondents. This indeed was an unusual course to adopt when the appellant had alleged mala fides on the basis of certain facts. For this reason, in this appeal, the parties were required to file their affidavits and both sides were heard at length with reference to the averments made in their affidavits.