TAPAS SIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner, the Deputy General Manager (Turnkey Project) of the M/s. Hindusthan Cables Ltd, the respondent No. 2, a company and a Government of INdia undertaking and at present registered with the BIFR has challenged the order of transfer dated 16/18th July, 2008 transferring him from Kolkata to Hyderabad Unit primarily on the ground that it was mala fide. Prayer has been made in the application, having G.A.No.1327 of 2009, for a direction upon the respondent No.2 to allow him to avail himself of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was in vogue from 1st November, 2009 to 30th November, 2009, since on 23rd November, 2009 he had filed an application seeking voluntary retirement.

(2.) THE facts which require to be considered and which have been highlighted during argument are that on 18th July, 2007 the petitioner received a letter from the Personnel Department of the respondent No.2 requesting him to submit his graduation certificate on the ground that the said certificate was missing from his service file. THE petitioner by letter dated 20th July, 2007 requested the Personnel Department to let him know the reasons behind the request for submission of the said certificate even after his employment for the past sixteen years. On the same day, the petitioner was informed by the Personnel Department that it was pursuant to the letter dated 6th July, 2007 and the subsequent reminder dated 13th July, 2007 at the instance of the Vigilance Department. According to the petitioner, as he was being victimised and/or defamed amongst the officers and his colleagues, he addressed a letter dated 31st July, 2007 requesting the Vigilance Department to let him know the reasons as to why he was being asked to submit his graduation certificate. However, as the letter dated 31st July, 2007 failed to elicit any answer, a reminder was sent on 7th August, 2007 to the Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), the respondent No. 4. However, it too went unanswered. Incidentally, in the meantime, by letter dated 23rd July, 2007, the petitioner had submitted a copy of the graduation certificate. Now feeling frustrated, the petitioner filed an application dated 21st August, 2007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act") with the Public Information Officer of the respondent No.2 reiterating the said request. Since no information was obtained, on 15th October, 2007 the petitioner applied before the First Appellate authority of the respondent No.2, but without any success. Aggrieved, on 1st February, 2008 the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, the Central Information Commission, New Delhi under section 19(3) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Central Information Commissioner by his order dated 4th June, 2008 held that the denial of information was unacceptable and the Public Information Officer of the respondent No.2 was directed to furnish the information. Consequent to the said order, the office of the Public Information Officer of the respondent No.2, by its letter dated 16th June, 2008 informed that a complaint was received against the petitioner on 27th June, 2007 alleging multiple irregularities/ allegations and in connection with one such allegation an investigation had been undertaken by the Vigilance Department and the Personnel Department had requested the petitioner to furnish a copy of the graduation certificate. According to the petitioner, under the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission any anonymous complaint must be filed and investigation has to be conducted within three months and a report has to be submitted. THEreafter, by letter dated 8th July, 2008 information was sought for on behalf of the petitioner from the Chief Vigilance Officer, the respondent No.3, regarding the name of the complainant, with regard to the steps taken pursuant to the complaint and whether the rules and regulations have been followed or not. According to the petitioner he came to know from a reliable source that there had been a group of officers in the office of the respondent No.2 who had taken animosity against him because of his honesty and sincerity in discharging his official duties. THE respondent No.3 was also involved in the said unholy nexus of officers plotting against him and in order harass him a consorted effort was made by all such vindictive officers to remove a the copy of his graduation certificate from the petitioner's service record through surreptitious means to create a false case against him so that his employment with the respondent No.2 could be put into jeopardy. THEreafter on or about 21st July, 2008 the petitioner was handed over the impugned order of transfer dated 16th/18th July, 2008.

(3.) LEARNED Advocates for the parties have relied on several judgments which shall be dealt with appropriately in this judgment.