OM PRAKASH PUROHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT in this appeal is an Engineer employed in the Central Public Works Department. While he was working as Superintending Engineer, Jodhpur Central Circle, CPWD, Jodhpur, the appellant was ordered to be transferred as Superintending Engineer, (Valuation) Bhopal vide order dated 19.7.99, which was communicated by the Deputy Director (Administration), New Delhi, from the office of the Directorate General of the Central Public Works Department. The order was at the instance of the Director General of the Central Public Works Department. By the same order Mr. R.P. Mathur, respondent No. 5 in this appeal who was then working as Superintending Engineer, P&A, North Zone III, Jaipur was posted vice appellant. The order dated 19.07.1999 in all contained 4 transfers including of the appellant and said Mr. R.P. Mathur. According to that order, one Lalit Mohan, S.E. (Valuation), Bhopal has been transferred as S.E. (P&A) North Zone III Jaipur vice Mr. R.P (2) Mathur and one Vipin Chand, who was S.E. (Parliament Library Project, New Delhi was transferred as S.E. (Planning) IBBZ, Siliguri. While the transfers of Mr. O.P. Purohit and Mr. R.P. Mathur and Mr. Lalit Mohan were part of the chain of transfers, the transfer of Vipin Chand was independent of it in pursuance of this order said Mr. R.P. Mathur had assumed charge of his office at Jodhpur where the present appellant was working on 21.07.1999, about which the appellant has made communication to Executive Engineers of Jodhpur, Bikaner, Jaisalmer and Jaisalmer Central Division and the Chief Engineer, CPWD vide his letter dated 21.07.1999 and on 21.07.1999 he had withdrawn advance of the Transfer Travelling Allowance amounting to Rs. 49,300/- which included rail fare for five persons from Jodhpur to Bhopal and also drew additional amount of Rs. 25,525/- as the balance required for air fare for five persons for the said distance of journey on 22.7.99. Thus, in all Rs. 74,825/- were withdrawn by the petitioner by 22nd of July, 1999. The appellant appears to have made a representation on 29.07.1999 against his transfer. Ultimately, he filed Original Appeal No. 194/99 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, in which amongst other parties, Mr. D.N. Bhargava, Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Sector 7, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur was impleaded by name as respondent No. 4 and Mr. R.P. Mathur, the person who was posted against him, as respondent No. 5. The relief claimed by the appellant-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the applicant's transfer order dated 19.7.1999 may be quashed and the applicant may be allowed to remain at Jodhpur to complete his term as provided in the Manual and secondly in the meanwhile if Mr. R.P. Mathur comes to join, the applicant may not be directed to handover the charge. The applicant also prayed for interim order that he may not be spared from Jodhpur till his representation dated 20.7.99 made to the competent authority is heard and decided. The grounds for challenging the transfer order were; firstly, that the applicant has not completed 3 to 4 years tenure at Jodhpur as prescribed in Para 5 of Sec. 8 of Central Public Works Department Manual and that the transfer has been actuated before completion of 3 to 4 years of stay at Jodhpur because of ill disposition on account of respondent No. 4 Mr. D.N. Bhargava in order to secure posting of respondent No. 5 Mr. R.P. Mathur at Jodhpur. In his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has not stated the facts about assumption of charge by Mr. R.P. Mathur on 21.07.1999 nor he disclosed the fact about withdrawal of advance Transfer Travelling allowance by 22.07.1999 notwithstanding making representation against transfer alleged to be made by 20.07.1999. Apparently, these facts were not disclosed in order to support his prayer for restraining Mr. Mathur from taking over charge from the petitioner and his prayer for not to be spared from Jodhpur wherefrom he was already relieved on assumption of charge by Mr. R.P. Mathur on 21.07.1999.

(2.) BE that as it may, no interim relief was granted. Reply was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. by Union of India, the Director General of Works, CPWD, New Delhi and Chief Engineer, CPWD, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. In reply the charges concerning the transfer being malafide at the behest of respondent No. 4 Mr. D.N. Bhargava were categorically denied. It was further stated that the respondent No. 3 viz. the Chief Engineer, CPWD, Jaipur had neither proposed for posting of respondent No. 5, nor he had any role in choosing the successor of the applicant and that these transfer orders were issued by respondent No. 2 viz. Director General of CPWD, who alone was competent to issue such orders, no allegation of malafide or bias has been alleged against the authority who exercised the power of transfer in administrative exigency viz. the Director General of Central Public Works Department, New Delhi. It was also stated in the reply that the applicant had remained at Jodhpur, which is his home town, for four years as Executive Engineer in Valuation Cell of Income Tax Department in addition to his present tenure of two years as Superintending Engineer on promotion. It was also pointed out that like the applicant, the respondent No. 5 has also served in remote areas of M.P. and Gujarat and at Border Fencing Works, which is considered as a difficult area positing for about 7-8 years.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that so far as review applications are concerned, the constitution of Bench is to accord with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 47 Rule 5 CPC, which governs the procedure relating to the hearing of review by the civil courts, reads as under:- O.XLVII R. 5 Application for review in Court consisting of two or more Judges. - Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absenee or other cause for a period of two months, next after application for considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any or them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hearing the same."