Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.I/C.B.I./S.C.R vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 June, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. 1194/ 2007
New Delhi this the 2nd day of June, 2009.
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Ram Kumar R.,
S/o Late Shri Ramasubramany,
R/o SD 116, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201102.
Presently employed as :
S.I/C.B.I./S.C.R.-1,
C-1 Hutments, Dalhousie Road,
New Delhi-110011. Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Mathew D. Proxy for Shri D.S. Choudhary)
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Through the Director,
Block-3, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Respondents
( Present None).
O R D E R
This is a reference that has come to me under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The question posed as seen from order dated 29.7.2007 is the following:
Whether the transfer in question is vitiated by punitive ness/victimization of the applicant and whether it is appropriate to interfere in it.
2. Member (Judicial) by order dated 29.7.2008 had held that the transfer of the applicant to Agartala was neither in the administrative exigency nor in the public interest. It had been held that transfer was ordered punitively, consideration based on extraneous factors. The Member had observed that the legal -2- malafides are apparent on the face of record. Policy guidelines have been ignored with a view to remove the applicant from his place of posting, namely, New Delhi
3. According to Member (Administrative), the transfer had been made by an authority competent and no statutory rules have been violated and no malafide stood established.
4. The applicant is a Sub Inspector in CBI. He had been transferred by order dated 6.7.2007 to Agartala Unit. He had commenced service by receiving posting in Mumbai in the year 2001. According to him, he had occasion to make certain complaints to the Superintendent of Police, which had directly resulted in a transfer to New Delhi in the year 2006. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. During the period a Writ Petition filed by a third party was pending before the High Court of Delhi. The applicant had occasion to write a letter to Judges of the High Court about the wrong data supplied by the CBI in the above pending case. He had also requested for permission to bring such matter to the notice of the Media. It is stated that it was in these context that action had been initiated against him and he had been transferred to Agartala.
5. The contention in short was that he had been victimized for bringing to the attention of the superior officers and the judiciary about the corrupt practices, which were being followed in the Department.
-3-6. Member (Judicial) as would be seen from the order had adverted to the relevant decisions on the subject, and had come to a conclusion that the applicant was subjected to harassment, and perhaps he was only exercising his fundamental rights of freedom of speech. But at that time power of transfer is adopted, which could not be considered as one in the exigency of service. It is also pointed out that a normal tenure that would have been there for him, was not permitted to be availed of. This was also circumstance to show that it was harassment.
7. However, referring to the grounds agitated in the OA, Member (A) had held that no allegations have been substantiated. According to him an officer working in CBI was liable to be posted anywhere in India. As a matter of fact, he had remained posted at Mumbai for 14 years. Transfer order shows that it was issued in public interest on administrative grounds. The Tribunal is not expected to go behind the order unless there is strong circumstance to indicate that it is punitive. Honble Member also referred to the averments that the applicant was apprehending threat to his life in Delhi and Mumbai. A transfer to Agartala would have been better in his interest. Heavy reliance have been placed by the learned Member on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas ( 1993 ( 2) SLR 585 (SC). The guidelines could not have been equated to statute law in matters of transfer.
-4-8. I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the Member (Administrative) taking notice of the totality of the circumstances of the case. If as a matter of fact the applicant had attempted to bring out corrupt practices it always was possible for him to pursue the work bearing in mind restrictions that necessarily bound him. There is nothing to indicate a link between the officer against whom the complaint had been filed and the authority who had issued transfer order. In the matter of transfer and posting, the administrative authority is the best judge. The isolated circumstances or certain facts highlighting to suggest that there is victimization which might be appearing in the transfer order, cannot be considered as justified to quash and set aside the order.
9. The difference of opinion refers to two altogether different aspects. Of the twin questions, even if there were suggestive circumstances for punitiveness, I take the stand that interference is inappropriate. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a case where interference is not warranted. OA is deserved to be dismissed.
10. But as he OA do not go back to the Bench, without follow up directions the order is likely to be in complete. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicant will be permitted to join duty at Agartala if he reports within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of -5- this order. Respondents will be at their discretion after hearing the applicant how to treat the period in between his relieving and joining be regularized, bearing in mind the rules. I would also record the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents that in case he joins duty at Agartala, the applicant can file representation for a re-transfer and if so it will be considered without any reservations.
11. In view of the majority decision, Original Application stands dismissed.
( M. Ramachandran) Vice Chairman (J) sk