K KANDASWAMY Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Superintendent of Central Excise at Erode-1 Division (Preventive)within the Salem Commissionerate. By the impugned order dated 8. 3. 2006, he has been transferred from Erode to Tiruchi Central Excise Commissionerate. The order of transfer is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was working in sensitive post at the time of transfer and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in N. K. Singh Vs Union of India (A. I. R. 1995 SC 432), before an Officer holding a sensitive post is transferred, it must be considered as to whether such transfer could be avoided and to his place a suitable successor is found. Secondly he would contend that the impugned order suffers on the ground of mala fide or atleast for lack of bona fide as he was instrumental in detecting the excise evasions by some of the local traders and more particularly, by one Mahalingam of M/s Ariya Plastics and M/s aravind Plastics, Perundurai, who happens to be a close friend of the Chairman of local municipality and at his instance the order of transfer is made. Hence, the impugned order of transfer is liable to be set aside.

(2.) MR. S. Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the order of transfer is made purely on administrative grounds. He would also submit that the allegation of bias or the mala fide is vague and is not supported by any material. He would further submit that as the transfer order is made on administrative reasons, the same cannot be interfered with.

(3.) AS far as the scope of judicial review of transfer, law is well settled that this Court will not be justified in interfering the order of transfer, if it is made on administrative grounds or in the public interest unless a strong ground of mala fide is made out or the transfer is questioned on the ground of want of jurisdiction or violation of provisions of law, as the transfer is incident of service. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was holding a sensitive post and he was instrumental for detecting excise evasion and only at the instance of those who were affected by the action of the petitioner, the impugned order of transfer is made. In para 4 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated as follows: