JAI NARAIN SHARMA Vs. LALIT KALA AKADEMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, L.D.C., and petitioner No. 2, U.D.C., posted in Lalit Kala Akademi (for short the 'Akademi') at its headquarter at New Delhi have challenged the order of their transfer, Annexure H dated 20.9.1995. Petitioner No. I has been ordered to be transferred to the Regional Lalit Kala Kendra, Lucknow and Petitioner No. 2 to Regional Lalit Kala Kendra, Bhubneshwar. Challenge to the order of transfer primarily is on the ground of malafide.

(2.) It is alleged that petitioners are employees of the respondent Akademi which is a registered Society registered under Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. I is the Vice President and petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Executive of the Lalit Kala Akademi Employees' Association (for short the 'Association') which has filed CW 1967/95 in this Court against the respondent-Akademi in which main relief sought by the Association is to have a proper investigation into large scale irregularities in the functioning of the Akademi, which is funded and controlled by the Government of India. It is alleged that number of representations were made by the Association to various authorities of the Government about the mismanagement especially by its Secretary but the same drew no response from them and when all efforts failed, a writ petition was filed in this Court. Realising that office bearers and members of the Association were keen to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion the Akademi started adopting measures as would compel the members of the Association to withdraw the writ petition and give up its demand for a probe into its affairs. A suit was also filed by the Akademi in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi seeking an order or injunction against the Association restraining its members from holding any meeting/demonstration within 50 metres of the premises of the Akademi. When the Association opposed the suit, members of Association/ Office bearers of the Association were served with various show cause notices asking them to explain why they should not be penalised for attending the proceedings in Court and making many other frivolous concocted charges such as misbehaving with the members of the General Council of the Akademi etc. After receipt of the replies, the show cause notices were withdrawn. A notice/memo was again served upon petitioner No. I calling upon him to show case as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for distributing a circular to the members of the Association. These proceedings were also withdrawn after petitioner No. I filed his reply.

(3.) In support of the allegation of malafides, it is stated in the petition that there has not been a single case of involuntary transfer of any employee of the Akademi of the status of L.D.C. or U.D.C. from one town to another. There have been only two cases of transfer of U.D.C. in the Akademi and in each the transfer orders were made on specific request of the employees. In all cases transfers have been made on promotion and have beer. voluntary. Petitioners have alleged that there was no administrative exigency to order the transfer of the petitioners to Lucknow and Bhubneshwar. One Prem Sagar Sharma had already applied for promotion to the post of L.D.C. in May, 1995 and had even expressed his willingness to be transferred to Lucknow. Even if for some reason it was not possible to send the said employee to Lucknow on promotion, the other mode which could have been adopted was to ask any of the 14 LDCs including three working on daily wages whether they were willing to go to Lucknow and if none was willing to go then junior most should normally have been transferred. If this was done the only person who would have been transferred would have been one Sumit Bhatia son of the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) who, according to the petitioners, had been working illegally on daily wages in the Akademi since 1995. Other person who could have been transferred on the basis of being junior most would have been Sunil son of the Regional Secretary of the Akademi, who has also been working on daily wage basis since 1993. It is also alleged that the transfer of petitioner No. 2 from Delhi to Bhubneshwar is also malafide and in order to create a vacancy in Bhubneshwar Mr. Kedear Nath Nayak was simultaneously ordered to be transferred to Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 has been in Delhi since 1989. There are other persons in Delhi as U.D.Cs since 1985 some junior and some senior to petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that since petitioner No. I is the Vice President and petitioner No. 2 is a member of the executive of the Association the transfer is actuated with malice, in the garb of administrative exigency. Transfer order has been issued in order to victimise and harass the office bearers of the Association, who have prayed for a C.S.I, investigation into the corrupt working of the Akademi and against its officials. Sole objective of the transfer is to compel the association to withdraw the writ petition. It is stated that the impugned transfer is against the established practice and policy of the respondents not to transfer the ministerial employees from one city to another against their wish.