SOHRAB ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the: judgment dated 7.6.95 of the learned single Judge dismissing Civil Rule No. 2335/95 filed by the appellant.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the appellant, an officer of the Assam Civil Service, was posted as Project Director, DRDA, Golaghat in the years 1992 to 1994. As such Project Director, DRDA, Golaghat, he made some purchase of tarpaulin for different development blocks of the value of Rs 11,28,878.00. The appellant was thereafter transferred and posted as A.D.C., Nagaon on 18.12.94. During his posting as A.D.C., Nagaon he was suspended by order dated 21.2.95 of the Government of Assam in the Personnel Department in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding for irregular purchase of tarpaulin as Project Director, DRDA, Golaghat. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the appellant moved the learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution registered as Civil Rule No. 823/95 and by the judgment dated 3.5.95, this Court quashed the order of suspension. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 3.5.95, the appellant was reinstated in service and was posted as A.D.C., Kokrajhar by the order of the Government of Assam, Personnel Department (A) The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 3.6.95 posting him as A.D.C., Kokrajhar, in Civil Rule No. 2335/95 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that pursuant to the judgment dated 3.5.95 the appellant stood reinstated as A.D.C., Nagaon where he was posted before suspension and that the posting of the appellant as A.D.C., Kokrajhar was vitiated by mala fides. Relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Singh-Vs-Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 95, the learned single Judge held that the power of the Court to interfere with the order of transfer is limited to cases where it is satisfied that statutory provision was violated or the transfer was made mala fide and that a case of mala fide had not been made out by the pleadings of the petitioner in the present case and dismissed the Civil Rule by the impugned judgment dated 7.6.95.

(3.) Mr N.M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that on the date of suspension the appellant was posted as A.D.C., Nagaon and accordingly when this Court quashed the order of suspension dated 21.2.95 in Civil Rule No. 823/95, the appellant was entitled to continue as A.D.C., Nagaon. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Lahiri. In the case of Union of India-Vs-S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, on a reading of FR 11 and 15 which was applicable to Government servants working under the Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the order of transfer is an incident of Government service and as to who should be transferred and where is a matter for the proper authority to decide. We find similar provisions made in Fundamental Rules made by the Governor of Assam under section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which are in force and are applicable to Government servants working under Government of Assam. FR 11 of the said Fundamental Rules applicable to Government servants working under the State Government of Assam, provides that the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority and FR 15 of the said Fundamental Rules provides that the State Government may transfer a Government servant from one post to another. Since the appellant was a Government servant under the State Government of Assam, under the aforesaid FR 11 and 15, he could be employed in any manner required by the proper authority and he was liable to be transferred from one post to another. Thus, assuming that the appellant stood reinstated in his post as A.D.C., Nagaon when the order of suspension, was quashed on 3.5.95 by this Court, it was fully within the power of the appropriate authority to post him as A.D.C., Kokrajhar on his reinstatement in his service by the impugned order dated 3.6.95.