RAJESH TALWAR Vs. STATE TRADING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has been challenging the transfer order, dated 19.5.1998 and 28.5.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide whereby the petitioner has been transferred from his present posting in Delhi to Calcutta branch with immediate effect.

(2.) On 6.6.1974, the petitioner joined the State Trading Corporation (STC)- Respondent No.l as Junior Assistant. On 1.7.1977 the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant. On 18.1.1980 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Office Manager. On 3.7.1989 he was promoted as an Assistant Manager. On 5.7.1993 the petition was promoted as Deputy Marketing Manager and transferred to Calcutta; that in April 1994, 50th Annual Session of Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) was commencing in New Delhi: that the delegations from various member countries comprising of Senior Ministers, Diplomats and Bureaucrats were to participate in the conference; that the transport arrangements were to be undertaken by respondent No. 1; that the petitioner was called upon to take up this challenging assignment and respondent No.l called the petitioner from Calcutta for this purpose; that due to sincere and hard work but in by the petitioner, the transport arrangement for the said conference went on very smoothly and the Additional Secretary, Minister of Commerce by his letter dated 2.5.1994 appreciated the work done by the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that during the period, 1993-1994, various irregularities in import deal done by STC came into lime light. It was found that there was collection amongst some officers working in STC, who caused immense loss to the corporation. At that stage, Mr. R.S. Sahaye, IPS, who was the Executive Director (Vigilance), recommended the petitioner for the same work and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi and posted in the Vigilance Division of STC and in course of the duties, the petitioner brought into light several cases wherein certain employees of STC by means of corrupt practices had caused great loss to the corporation The enquiry was conducted by Shri R.S. Sahaye. Executive Director (Vig.), who gave his report and mentioned therein that certain officers had played role in the deal with STC ; that CBI, on preliminary inquiries, registered a case RC No. 1(A) /96-ACU-1 dated 5.1.1996 suspecting certain officers; that the petitioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against Shri V.P. Singh, who was appointed as General Manager (Vig.). On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the petitioner, it was recommended by the authority that a note be put in the personal file that Shri V.P. Singh is unit to hold any sensitive assignment: that apart from the aforesaid enquiry, there were two other enquiries which were conducted by the petitioner against Shri V.P. Singh, one with regard to STD/ISD calls by Shri V.P. Singh, that on 25.9.1997 the petitioner was promoted from Deputy Marketing Manager to Marketing Manager; that on 19.2.1998 the petitioner was informed that respondent No. 1 had received an anonymous complaint against him to the effect that the petitioner has been claiming LTC/medical facilities for his parents although his father was a retired employee from Army Headquarters. Govt. of India was in receipt of pension amount exceeding Rs. 500.00 per month that the petitioner was asked to furnish his comments and the comments were submitted by the petitioner against the said aHegations; that the petitioner is governed by the STC Employees Medical Benefit Scheme ; that under Rule 1.3(ii)the parents of the petitioner were dependent upon him; that on the basis of the comments submitted by the petitioner, the General Manager (Vig.) was satisfied that the allegations against the petitioner were malicious and motivated and he further pointed out that no further action. In the matter needs to be called for;that the C.M.D., however, appears to be under pressure from the various comers to see that the petitioner is removed from his present post for his honesty and integrity was a matter of hindrance to many officers ; that without making any enquiry and without issuing any memo of charges to the petitioner, the CMD on 15.5.1998 passed an order to transfer the petitioner from the Vigilance Division to STC's Regional Office at Calcutta with immediate effect; that after receiving the said order on 20.5.1998 the petitioner continued in the same post till 25.5.98 when on 26.5.1998 the petitioner had to be admitted in Anand Hospital; that the petitioner was diagnosed for hypertension and depression; that the respondents were in great anxiety to see that petitioner was relieved from his present posting; that two officials were deputed to check the position of the petitioner in respect to his admission in hospital etc. that the petitioner was served with Memorandum dated 28.5.1998 at 9.30 p.m. in hospital calling upon him to automatically report to his next place of posting after being relieved from the Hospital and the petitioner was not even called upon to valid over the charge.