NATIONAL POWER TRAINING INSTITUTE Vs. K.C. YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition impugns the judgment dated 21st January, 2003, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal filed by the respondent herein, against the writ petitioner, seeking quashing and setting aside of order of transfer from National Power Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the NPTI, for short) at Badarpur to NPTI, Neyveli. Respondent had challenged the order of transfer dated 29th October, 2002, inter alia, on the ground of malafides. It may be worthwhile to briefly narrate the grounds on which the order of transfer in question was challenged.

(2.) RESPONDENT -K.C. Yadav, worked as Deputy Director in the NPTI, Badarpur. On 28th March, 2002, a DPC was conducted for the post of Director. Respondent was superseded and one Shri J.S.S. Rao who was four steps junior to the respondent was promoted. Respondent represented against the promotion on the ground that DoP&T O.M. Dated 8th February, 2002 had been violated. He prayed for a review DPC. His representation was rejected. Respondent was personally advised by the petitioners not to raise the matter further. Respondent, however, filed an appeal before Secretary (Power), Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Allegedly petitioners got annoyed on account of the appeal made by the respondent and withdrew the special allowance granted to the respondent as well as changed the working conditions to the respondent's disadvantage. Petitioners issued memos to the respondent on frivolous grounds and thereafter served him with the order of transfer allegedly harbouring ill -will against the respondent as he had questioned the wrongful promotion of the candidate who was the favourite of the petitioners. An important aspect pointed out by the respondent is that the timing and the manner of serving out the transfer order itself portray malfides. It was to prevent the respondent from proceeding to Court to challenge the order of supercession that the transfer was allegedly made. Respondent feels that he had made preparations for challenging the order of DPC before the administrative Tribunal and having come to know that the O.A., was about to be filed, the transfer order was passed on 29th October, 2002. The transfer order along with the relieving order, both in sealed covers, were served on him on 30th October, 2002, at 5.00 p.m., whereas the O.A., before the Tribunal was scheduled to be filed on 31st October, 2002. The O.A., was scheduled to be filed on 31st October, 2002. Apart from malafides, respondent in the OA had further questioned the transfer order on the ground that he should not have been transferred in the middle of the academic session as his children were in school. He further alleged in the OA that there were other Deputy Directors who were working at Badarpur for a much longer time than him and that he could not have been transferred if the transfer was in public interest. Respondent further tried to show that his transfer would adversely affect the interest of administration as he was the only M. Tech qualified in Mechanical Engineering at Badarpur and thus he was the only person who could conduct the B. Tech Course at the Institute.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal observed that the respondent's resistance to the promotion of his junior had led to the wrath of the authorities upon him and in furtherance thereof he was served with several memos in September, 2002. Respondent's appeal against the order of promotion, the Tribunal observed, had been rejected with a warning not to adhere to unnecessary communications. This type of communications from the respondent continued and ultimately the vigilance enquiry was conducted leading to the finding of misdemeanour, as mentioned above. The Tribunal observed that instead of placing the respondent under suspension or initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, the authorities took resort to transferring the respondent. The learned Tribunal has found that the transfer was not due to administrative exigencies but was for collateral purpose as the transfer had been ordered instead of calling upon the respondent to submit his explanation for the findings of the vigilance enquiry. Learned Tribunal further observed that the petitioner had miserably failed to produce any material to indicate that the enquiry had been initiated or that the respondent could tamper with the investigation or influence the witnesses.