S M MATLOOB Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM APPL. No. 10395/2014 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner has argued this Writ Petition in person. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the transfer order dated 20th May, 2004 was passed against him by the respondent due to mala fide reasons as an act of vindictiveness against him. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was transferred vide order dated 20th May, 2004 and he was relieved from his duties on the very next day of passing of the transfer order i.e. on 21st May, 2004. It is also the case of the petitioner that after having received the relieving order on 15.06.2004, he had proceeded to join at the Regional Office, Lucknow but he was prevented from doing so and, in fact, by a letter dated 24th May, 2004 the Director of the respondents at Regional Office, Lucknow expressed his regret to allow the joining of the petitioner at the Regional Office, Lucknow. He, in fact, in his communication made it clear that the Regional Office, Indian Council for Cultural Relations (hereinafter referred to as the 'ICCR') no more needs his services and he was never assigned any work. The stand taken by the petitioner is that in so far as his joining at the Regional Office, Lucknow was concerned as it was the Regional Office, Lucknow which had prevented him to join the said Office in terms of the transfer order passed by the respondent and not because of his fault.

(3.) The petitioner, thereafter again approached the Delhi Office for permission to join back in Delhi and since he was not permitted to join in Delhi he was left with no other option but to file a Civil Suit being No. 215/2004 and the said Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition being No.12457/2005 to challenge the said transfer order and this Writ Petition was also dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on 7th September, 2005 on the advice given by his counsel. The petitioner again moved an application to seek recalling of the order dated 07.09.2005 and the said application moved by the petitioner was allowed by the Court vide order dated 29th May, 2007. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Writ Petition was transferred to the learned Tribunal and the same was registered as TA No. 1244/2009. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner had also filed an application seeking quashing of the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. This T.A. No.1244/2009 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal giving liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case he succeeds in the other O.A. preferred by him, i.e. O.A. No.1821/2009 wherein he raised a challenge against the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. On 14th May, 2010, this O.A. No.1821/2009 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal which is to be disposed of in three months period. The said order dated 14th May, 2010 was set aside in Writ Petition (C) No.6011/2010 with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide O.A. No.1821/2009. The O.A. 1821/2009 was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file another O.A. Another O.A. being No. 3859/2011 was preferred by the petitioner, which again was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh O.A. This is how the petitioner has preferred another O.A. being No.4473/2013 in which the impugned order has been passed.