MANASI MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in dismissing her O.A. No. 497 of 2011, wherein she challenged her order of transfer from INHS Nivarini at Chilka to the Station Health Organization (V) at Family Welfare Centre, Visakhapatnam. From the facts, as revealed, it appears that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 30.9.1997 while working in INHS Nivarini as CPO No. 203934-N. The petitioner was given appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme as Family Welfare Extension Educator (for short, 'FWEE') in INHS Nivarini at INS Chilka in the district of Khurda on 16.2.1999. The service of the petitioner was permanent in nature and since the date of her joining, she was continuing there. It appears that the petitioner has made several representations to the opp. parties with regard to assigning duties to her over and above the duty of FWEE, but no action was taken thereon. The petitioner also alleged that the opp. parties 3 and 4 caused sexual harassment to her taking advantage of her helpless condition. She further alleged that the said opp. parties 3 and 4 pressurized the Oi/C, who took over the Family Welfare on 4.4.2011 to make allegations against her. The opp. parties 3 and 4 issued two show cause notices to the petitioner on 11.7.2011, one pertaining to a patient, namely, Mrs. Ritanjali Champati, who underwent sterilization on 6.7.2011 and the other on the issue of absence of the petitioner from duty on 9.7.2011. The petitioner furnished her show cause reply to both the said notices denying the allegations levelled against her as baseless, motivated and frivolous. Apprehending further action, the petitioner also endorsed the said show cause to the Flag Officer Commanding-in-chief (for Command Medical Officer) Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Kochi and other higher authorities. It is asserted by the petitioner that she learnt from reliable sources that the opp. parties 3 and 4 while issuing the show cause notice's have also simultaneously requested opp. party No. 2 in writing to transfer the petitioner to Visakhapatnam making false allegations against her. On 29.7.2011 the petitioner suffered from ailment for which she submitted an application for grant of two days leave. As her health condition deteriorated, she was advised by the Attending Physician for better treatment, to go to Cuttack. She again submitted a leave application on-30.7.2011 seeking fifteen days leave on medical ground furnishing her leave address. While under treatment, she could come to know that the opp. party No. 2 has passed orders on 28.7.2011 permanently transferring her from INHS Nivarini to Station Health Organization (V) at Family Welfare Centre, Visakhapatnam purportedly on public interest. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 497 of 2011, inter alia, praying to quash the impugned order of transfer on the following grounds:

(2.) During the pendency of the Original Application, on 3.8.2011, the learned Tribunal passed an order while issuing notice, to maintain status quo in so far as the transfer of the petitioner is concerned, which was allowed to continue till final disposal of the Original Application. The opp. parties filed their response to the said O.A. and the petitioner also filed a rejoinder affidavit before the learned Tribunal denying the assertions made in the counter and justifying her allegations.

(3.) The learned Tribunal in the impugned order after noting the facts of the case and the allegations and counter allegations made and taking note of various case laws of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to the limited scope of the Courts in interfering with the orders of transfer, came to the conclusion that there is no substance in support of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, the same having not been supported by any unimpeachable material. As law is well settled that people are prone to make allegation of mala fide/usually raised by an interested party (as in the instant case), the Tribunal should be careful while quashing the order of transfer on such grounds. Thus concluding, the learned Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of transfer recording that it does so as the order of transfer is made in administrative exigencies.