BANAMALI PALEI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee under the Hindustan Steel Limited and has filed the three writ petitions, one challenging his order of transfer, the other challenging his order of termination in a regular proceeding against him and the third challenging the order of his eviction from the quarters which he was occupying as an employee of the Hindustan Steel Limited. Since the three writ applications are linked up with one another, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In O.J.C. No. 658 of 1980, the petitioner challenges the order of his transfer dated 14-4-1978 to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer mainly on the ground that he had been appointed to the post of Civil Defence Officer which is an ex-cadre post and, therefore, the employer was not authorised to transfer him from the said post without his consent. Subsequent to the said order of transfer, the petitioner represented to the Chief Administrative Officer to cancel the order of transfer, but that was not acceded to and petitioner was'unilaterally relieved by order dated 10-7-1979 and was asked to hand over' charge to Shri S. R. Patnaik, Administrative Officer of the Town Administration Department. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner did not obey the orders and, therefore, regular charges were framed against the petitioner by order dated 11-8-1980. Petitioner submitted his explanation and after due enquiry, the enquiring authorities found the petitioner guilty. The disciplinary authority ultimately terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 4-7-1981 and the said order is being impugned in O. J. C. No. 1486 of 1981. Subsequent to the termination of the petitioner, as the petitioner was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the quarters which had been allotted to him while he was continuing as an employee of the Hindustan Steel Limited, in a proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction on 10-7-1984. The petitioner carried an appeal to the District Judge who is the appellate authority and the appeal having been dismissed by judgment dated 25-4-1985, the petitioner filed O. J. C. No. 1705 of 1985 challenging the order of his eviction from the quarters in question.

(3.) Coming to the question of legality of the order of transfer dated 14-4-1978. which is the subject-matter of O. J. C. No. 658 of 1980, the petitioner's stand is that the Civil Defence Officer is an ex-cadre post and is under the control of the Director of Civil Defence and the Controller. In that view of the matter, the authorities of the Hindustan Steel Limited had no jurisdiction to transfer him to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer to the prejudice of the petitioner without his consent. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it has been clearly stated that the Civil Defence Officer is an officer of the Security Department of the Company and prior to the petitioner's appointment therein he was working as a Senior Assistant in the Accounts Department of the company from where he was transferred to work as an Office Superintendent in various departments and ultimately was posted as Civil Defence Officer. The petitioner's service is transferable and he was duly transferred by the competent authority to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. It was further asserted that even petitioner's predecessor-in-office Shri K. K. Trivedi who was Civil Defence Officer, was transferred as an Assistant Administrative Officer. The allegation that the post of Civil Defence Officer is an ex-cadre post has been denied in the counter affidavit and it has also been denied that the order of transfer to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer is to the prejudice of the petitioner. In para 12 the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that the post of Assistant Administrative Officer to which post the petitioner was transferred is a parallel post with the post of Civil Defence Officer and the said order of transfer has been made in the exigencies of public service. A further affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company asserting that the post of Civil Defence Officer is an executive post of the Company and all executive officers of the Company are transferable from one department to another. The appointment to the said post of Civil Defence Officer is not an appointment under the Civil Defence Act as alleged by the petitioner. It has further been stated that the security department of the company was abolished after the Central Security Force Act, 1968 came into force and the post of Civil Defence Officer was transferred to the administrative department since the nature of the work of the said post was also administrative in character. No materials have been produced before us to substantiate the stand of the petitioner that the post of Civil Defence Officer is an excadre one. That being the position and in view of the assertions made in the counter affidavit of the opposite parties, we do not find any illegality in the order of transfer of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. There is no dispute that the two posts i.e. the post from which and the post to which the petitioner has been transferred are posts borne in the same rank. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order of transfer and accordingly the grievance of the petitioner is of ho substance. 0. J. C. No. 658 of 1980 must, therefore, be rejected.