LAWS(CAL)-2003-5-8

KALYAN CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 15, 2003
KALYAN CHOWDHURY Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9.8.02 in O.A. No. 675/2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby the learned Tribunal below dismissed an application of the petitioner made against the transfer order dated 25.6.02 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Kolkata to Burdwan on the same post.

(2.) It transpires from the impugned order that the petitioner who was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-XI on 26.06.2001 and the same post has since been designated as Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata with effect from 1.8.2002. It was alleged that during the financial year 2001-2002, the performance of the department under the applicant's charge was very good as per the total tax collection was concerned. Despite the good performance of the applicant and the D.O. letter dated 15.1.2002 issued by the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes the applicant was transferred. Besides this, the applicant in the application before the Tribunal also alleged some personal difficulties in connection with his order of transfer from Kolkata to Burdwan. Before the Tribunal, the respondents opposed the claim of the applicant by alleging that the applicant had no cogent and valid ground to challenge the order of transfer, alleging further that the applicant was transferred from Kolkata to Burdwan that is to say within the same region though he completed 14 years of stay in West Bengal region, which is the maximum period of stay in a region and that the transfer in question was in the interest of administration and as per the transfer guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide its circular dated 9.11.99. In a rejoinder, the applicant reiterated that he was not due for transfer outside or within the region by the Central Board of Direct Taxes own standard and he should not be posted on transfer from a Metropolitan city to a nearby station.

(3.) In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered the question whether the transfer of the applicant was in violation of D.O. letter dated 15.1.02 issued by the respondent No. 3 and observed that by such D.O. letter it was disclosed that the officer who performed well would be given posting in important areas of work. The word 'area' in the D.O. letter, did not signify the geographical area, and the same was used in relation to work. At the same time, the words 'non-performer will be shifted to insignificant jobs' did not mean that the non-performer was to be shifted to the smaller place. A place might be small yet the job might be significant. On the other hand, at times, the place might be bigger even a cosmopolitan city, yet the job might be insignificant. In relation to the posting order at Burdwan, it was held that Burdwan might be smaller place than Kolkata, but it could not be said that the applicant had been shifted to insignificant job, because the job was the same. The Tribunal also considered the question of transfer in relation to the guidelines issued for the purpose of transfer, the officers of the department came to a firm finding that by such transfer, guidelines were not violated. The learned Tribunal below here specially considered the para 17 of the guidelines which stated that the officers at the level of Commissioner of Income Tax could not be posted on transfer from a metropolitan city to a nearby station. The learned Tribunal reading the same even with paragraph 5 of the said guidelines came to a clear finding that there was inconsistency in the guidelines. In any case it was observed that the guidelines were of directory nature. They were not statutory provisions. So even the transfer order was in violation of some of the guidelines it could not be quashed. Relying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court the learned Tribunal comes to an ultimate finding that there could not be any justification for the Tribunal to interfere in the order of transfer in the instant case.