RAJENDRA ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. Heard the appellant -in -person and the learned counsel for the respondents. An order of transfer dated July 17, 1991 passed against the appellant transferring him to the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, Calcutta from the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, New Delhi, is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. The appellant belongs to the Central Information Service since renamed as Indian Information Service. On December 17, 1990, the appellant was transferred to the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP Calcutta and prior to the impugned order of transfer he held the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, New Delhi. The appellant has challenged the order of transfer inter alia on the ground that such order of transfer was not passed for al1ministrative reasons in the interest of public service but the same was passed mala fide in order to get rid of him because the respondent No.2 had a personal score against the appellant and he manipulated the impugned order of transfer. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) AFTER going through the records of the case and considering rival contentions, the Tribunal was of the view that the allegation of malice and grudge alleged by the appellant against the respondents could not be substantiated. No statutory rule was violated by the impugned order of transfer. As such, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. The Tribunal has indicated that in case of personal difficulty, an employee can make representation to the authority concerned but simply on the score of personal hardship, an order of transfer relating to a transferable post cannot be held back. The Tribunal has also noted that the appellant did not make representation to the concerned department. He has, therefore, not exhausted the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules and on that score also the application made by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE appellant has joined the post in terms of the impugned order of transfer and the order of transfer has been given effect to. It has also been stated that the appellant is holding a middle level post which does not require proficiency in the regional language and the appellant being a member of the Central Service is liable to serve anywhere in the country. The regional language proficiency is not required for the postings and transfers of the members of the Service at the middle management and senior levels. At the hearing the appellant appearing in person has submitted that although the appellant holds a transferable post, the order of transfer cannot be made mala fide and for an oblique purpose. An order of transfer may appear innocuous on the face of it but if on scrutiny of the facts it transpires that the order of transfer has been passed in order to penalise a concerned employee and not for administrative exigencies, the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. The appellant has contended that an order of transfer has various consequences and the concerned employee and the members of the family often suffer seriously by the order of transfer. He has also contended that mala fide may not always be established very convincingly but from the facts pleaded in the case, the inference of mala fide may be drawn by the Court. The appellant has submitted that he had to move Courts of law against various unjust decisions of the Department and as a matter of fact he filed a contempt application before this Court alleging non -compliance of the order passed by this Court. Since the order passed by this Court was later on followed by the Department, the appellant in fairness submitted before this Court at the hearing of the contempt application that the said application should be disposed of in view of the compliance of the order.