K. ANOOP SAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P.(CAT) has been filed challenging the order dated

(2.) 11.2020 in O.A.No.180/00/844/2019 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner herein was the applicant before the Tribunal. The Original Application was filed challenging an order of transfer dated 25.11.2019 through which the petitioner/applicant, who is an Indian Information Service Officer, was transferred and posted as Registration Supervisor, in the office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India. The order was challenged before the Tribunal on four specific grounds namely, on the ground that there was a violation of the transfer norms prescribing a tenure, on the ground that there was no administrative exigency, on the ground that the transfer was malafide and was initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent and on the ground that the petitioner/applicant was entitled to the benefit of Annexure-A15 office memorandum granting exemption to caregivers of disabled persons from normal transfer. 2. The Tribunal examined the matter in detail. Insofar as the alleged violation of transfer norms is concerned, the Tribunal considered the service history of the petitioner/applicant and found that he has been working in Kerala since 2015 and that the transfer of the petitioner/applicant was recommended by the Civil Services Board, which has the power to relax the transfer guidelines in the case of administrative exigency. The Tribunal did not find merit in the contention that there was a violation of transfer guidelines. Insofar as the contention raised that there was no administrative exigency, the Tribunal considered the recommendation of the Civil Service Board (Ext.R1(a) before the Tribunal) and held that the reason set out therein constituted sufficient administrative exigencies for transfer of the petitioner. Regarding the allegation of malafides, the Tribunal considered the reply statement of the 4 th respondent against whom the allegations of malafides were raised and found that the petitioner/applicant had miserably failed to establish any malafides. Insofar as the allegation of violation of stipulation contained in Annexure-A15 office memorandum, the Tribunal considered the contention of the petitioner/applicant that he is the sole caregiver for his father, who has 50% disability and found that the Civil Service Board had no occasion to consider the specific grievance of the petitioner regarding violation of Annexure- A15, as such an issue was never brought to the notice of those concerned. The Tribunal also considered the contention of the petitioner/applicant that he was relieved from duty on the very next day, after the relieving order was sent to his personal email id in order to deny him the benefit of the interim order granted by the Tribunal at the time when the Original Application was moved. The Tribunal did not find merit in the contention of the petitioner/applicant that the relieving order should have been communicated only through official email id and also found that the interim order from the Tribunal was obtained without disclosing the fact that he had been communicated with a relieving order two days before the interim order came to be issued.

(3.) Sri. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant would reiterate the contentions raised before the Tribunal and vehemently argues that this is a case, which should not be considered as a routine case challenging a transfer order. He would submit that this is a case where the petitioner/applicant had been transferred only on account of the influence exercised by the 4 th respondent over the 3rd respondent. He would submit that the administrative exigency that has been considered as being sufficient by the Tribunal was in fact no administrative exigency and the requirements at RNI was only for a junior officer and not for a senior officer like the petitioner/applicant. He would contend that the tenure specified in the transfer guidelines for Indian Information Service Officers is binding and transfers in violation of the same should not be permitted. He would also refer to Annexure-A15 guidelines and submit that since his father is admittedly a person with a disability, he should not have been transferred in violation of the stipulations in Annexure-A15.