S.K. SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is currently working as Assistant Law Officer (ALO) at Ahmedabad under the respondent railways. After having been initially appointed in the railway services as Law Assistant on 21 -9 -1989, he was posted in the office of the Law Officer, Railway Headquarters, Churchgate, Mumbai. He states that his promotion and posting as Assistant Law Officer (ALO) was bogged down with acrimonious interventions by his superior officers by way of disciplinary proceedings against him and the result of selection was kept in sealed cover. After those proceedings came to a close by suffering minor penalties, he was promoted to the Group B post of ALO in Mumbai, on provisional basis, and he joined post of ALO on 31 -10 -2002. Respondent No. 4 who is much junior to the applicant was selected for the post of ALO at Ahmedabad Division and his posting order was issued vide Annexure -A/3. According to the applicant respondent No. 3 has been biased and prejudiced towards the applicant and it was he who processed the file for transferring the applicant to Ahmedabad and for posting respondent No. 4 at Mumbai. The applicant further states that just before transfer to Ahmedabad the applicant was proceeded against by respondent No. 3 for his alleged lapses relating to a case in the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal which has reached the stage of contempt petition against respondent No. 2 herein, and others. The applicant was served with a charge -sheet on 27 -4 -2012 and within half an hour thereafter he was served with the impugned order of transfer. According to him the impugned order is issued not in the interest of administration/exigency of service, punitive and is causing double jeopardy. He further states that the impugned order is by way of victimising him. Hence he prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed MA/249/2013 to delete his personal name from the cause title of this OA stating that if he is allowed to continue under his personal name, the respondent railway will not defend his case. Considering the nature of his contentions in the said MA, the prayer was allowed, deleting his personal name from the array of parties.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 also filed a reply in which he disputes that the applicants service is meritorious and unblemished as claimed in the OA. According to him the disciplinary action taken against him right from the year 1997 onwards had no relevancy with the impugned order of transfer. Respondent No. 3 states that applicant in this OA has made wild allegations against him and the CVO without any basis. Respondent No. 3 further states that there is nothing irregular or illegal in his act. According to him there is no nexus between issuance of charge -sheet against the applicant and the impugned transfer order. Respondent No. 3 prays for rejecting the OA.