BHAGYADHAR SATAPATHY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER FERROSCRAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order of transfer dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure -3, charge -sheet dated 22.2.2004, Annexure -8 and the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer in the said proceeding, Annexures -9 and 10.

(2.) PETITIONER while working as Senior Crane Operator -I in Rourkela Steel Plant applied for his transfer to the newly opened unit of Nilachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'NINL') situated at Duburi on the ground that his brother met a premature death and that he has to look after the family of his deceased brother. His representation was allowed and by virtue of order dated 6.8.2002, Annexure -2, he joined at the Duburi unit of NINL. While working there, he was served with office order dated 10/12.2.2004, Annexure -3, transferring him to Dolvi unit of NINL. Petitioner made a representation on 14.2.2004, Annexure -4 requesting the Deputy General Manager (P and A) to cancel the order of transfer or to transfer him back to Rourkela Steel Plant. In the said representation, he also made an alternative prayer that in case his transfer to Dolvi unit is not cancelled or his prayer for re -transfer to Rourkela Steel Plant is not favoured with, then he may be allowed to take voluntary retirement from his service under the VRS scheme floated by the opposite parties. While the matter stood thus, petitioner approached this Court vide WPC No. 2363 of 2004 with prayer to quash the order of transfer, Annexure -3, or to direct the opposite parties to post him at Rourkela or to allow him to take voluntary retirement. This Court after considering the matter, passed order on 2.3.2004 (Anhexure -5) directing the General Manager, FSNL, (opposite party no. 1) to consider and dispose of representation of the petitioner at an early date preferably within a period of four weeks. On 5.3.2004 petitioner then submitted a fresh representation Annexure -6 to the opp.parties, but the said representation was rejected by order dated 22.3.2004, Annexure -7. Since petitioner did not join his place of posting at Dolvi in spite of rejection of his representation, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for disobedience of the order and unauthorized absence from duty and enquiry into the proceeding was also commenced as per order dated 24.2.2004, Annexure -8. Aggrieved by such action of the opposite parties, petitioner has filed the present writ application with the prayer to quash the orders as indicated earlier.

(3.) MR . S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had no doubt been transferred from Rourkela unit to Duburi unit on his own representation, but that does not give him unfettered legal right to continue at Duburi unit indefinitely. He submitted that the transfer of an employee from one unit to another is made on need basis and the administrative authorities are to decide the posting of the employees according to the requirement of the units and such administrative order being not visited with malice, is not liable for interference. He indicated that transfer of the petitioner to Dolvi unit was made to cater to the need of Crane operators in that unit and there was no malice on the part of the opposite parties in passing such order.