LAWS(CA)-2012-8-9

SHRAWAN KUMAR BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 28, 2012
Shrawan Kumar Bansal Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard for disposal. The aforesaid OAs are being disposed of by this common order as cause of action involved in both the OAs is same. For the purpose of this order, reference is made to the facts, pleadings and documents OA No. 530/2012.

(2.) THE applicants in the aforesaid OAs were posted as Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise at Bhopal. They are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14th June, 2012 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby they have been transferred from Bhopal CX to Cochin CX on the ground that the aforesaid transfer order has been issued at the behest of respondent No. 4 who nourishes ill -will against applicant Shrawan Kumar Bansal.

(3.) SHRI S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 would argue that the applicant's transfer from Bhopal Zone to Cochin Zone is on administrative ground and in public interest and the same has been issued with the approval of the Government. There is no allegation of mala fide against the C.B.E. & C. or Union Finance Minister and wild allegations have been made against respondent No. 4. Since respondent No. 4 in compliance of the directions of the C.B.E. & C. ascertained through his Commissioner the status of pending IPRs of Group -A officers of the zone and found that none of the applicant's IPR has been accepted as he did not file IPRs of his previous department and he is also not giving reasons for keeping huge cash of Rs. 7 lakhs declared in his return of assets and liabilities on first appointment and he asked the applicant to submit the desired documents for acceptance of his IPRs, the applicant nourishes ill -will towards respondent No. 3/4. He did not respond to the communication of Annexure -R/2 and did not file IPRs for the year 2010 to avoid further query. From close scrutiny of the correspondence filed as Annexure -R/1 to R/11, it would be evident that the applicant has entered into huge financial transaction and as per Rule 18(3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short the Conduct Rules') - he has failed to intimate about the said transaction to the Government which needs vigilance investigation.