Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
K.P. Gautam vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 24/2008 New Delhi, this the 1st day of August, 2008 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) K.P. Gautam S/o Shri Ishwar Chand Gautam P.G.T. (Chemistry) (under suspension) Kendriya- Vidyalaya Andrews-Ganj, New Delhi. Applicant By Advocate: Shri D.P. Sharma. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, 18, Institutional Area-Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 3. Shri Ranveer Singh Education Officer, Kendriya-Vidyalaya Sangthan, 18, Institutional Area-Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 4. Dr. Sachikant Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Delhi Region JNU Campus, New Mehroli Road, New Delhi-110067. ..Respondents By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh. O R D E R (ORAL)
By this OA applicant has challenged order dated 21.3.2007 (page 11) whereby he was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fatehgarh in public interest and also order dated 22.10.2007 whereby his request for canceling transfer order was rejected.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that it was only in the year 2004 that applicant was transferred from Damoh, Madhya Pradesh to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj. He was performing his duty to entire satisfaction of his superiors. However, on 13.9.2006 he was put under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings (page 15). The said suspension was revoked vide order dated 13.2.2007 with a direction to report to the Education Officer, Estt.II, KVS (Hqrs) for suitable posting (page 22). Vide memorandum dated 2.3.207 applicant was served with a charge-sheet (page 16) and within few days thereafter, i.e., on 21.3.2007 he was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Fatehgarh. Being aggrieved, applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1572/2007 which was disposed off on 7.9.2007 by directing the respondents to take a decision on applicants representation and to pass a reasoned order thereon (page 29) pursuant to which his representation has been rejected vide order dated 22.10.2007.
3. These orders have been challenged by the counsel for the applicant on the ground that they are punitive in nature as transfer has been issued due to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant without even the charges having been proved against him. Applicant has also submitted that his sister and her family is dependant on him, younger brother is handicapped, there are lots of liabilities on him, therefore, his transfer order may be quashed and set aside.
4. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have submitted that as per para 8(iv) of the transfer guidelines, a person against whom charge-sheet has been issued can be transferred. Since there were serious charges levelled against the applicant by his immediate superior officer, therefore, he has been transferred in order to bring peace in the school and to avoid further altercations in the school or creating bad scenes in the presence of students and other staff.
5. As per para 12 (iv) of transfer guidelines, a teacher who is transferred on administrative grounds, shall not be considered for transfer before completing 5 years. However, he will not be transferred to the station from where he is transferred out on the administrative ground. Such a case can be considered only on completion of his tenure. He has thus submitted that there is no mala fide or violation of any statutory rules, therefore, this case call for no interference. The same may accordingly be dismissed.
6. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 532.
(ii) Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993 (4) SCC 357.
(iii) State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others reported in 2001 (3) AISLJ 270 (SC).
(iv) State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 (3) SCALE 574.
(v) Sujata Kohli Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in 148 (2008) DLT 17 (DB).
(vi) S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890.
(vii) Chief Commerical Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad and Others Vs. G.Ratnam and Others reported in 2007 (8) SCC 212.
(viii) Deepak Tandon Vs. J&K Bank Ltd. reported in 2001 (3) AISLJ (Delhi High Court).
7. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
8. Admittedly vide memorandum dated 3.2.2007 applicant was served with the charge-sheet on following allegations:-
ARTICLE-I That the said Shri K.P. Gautam while working as PGT (Chemistry) at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj (First Shift), New Delhi on 13.9.2006 misbehaved and used abusive language and shouted loudly as with Smt. Shashi Suri, Vice-Principal of the Vidyalaya when she went to observe the Class VIII-B during 3rd period where he was teaching in the presence of Shri S.S. Rawat, Principal of the Vidyalaya.
ARTICLE-II That the said Shri K.P. Gautam while working as PGT (Chem.) at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi during the period 2006-07 used faulty teaching methods and went to the class without any planning and preparation of lessons and used to finish the lessons merely by reading from text book. He did not maintain daily diary for Class VIII-B and failed to complete the syllabus for 2nd Unit Test in time causing problem for the students. When Smt. Shashi Suri Vice-Principal of the Vidyalaya on 13.9.2006 in third period while observing his class pointed it out then he misbehaved with her and used abusive language and threatened her in the presence of Shri S.S. Rawat, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalay, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
Thus this act on the part of Shri K.P. Gautam exhibits his lack of devotion to duty and integrity and is an act unbecoming of a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan employee and constitutes misconduct in terms of Rule 3 (1), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Ruesl, 1964 as applicable to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
9. Perusal of this shows that atmosphere in the school was being vitiated due to the alleged behavior of the applicant. In these circumstances, whatever will be the outcome of departmental enquiry is a separate matter but immediate action which is required to be taken by the administration is to ensure that atmosphere is not further vitiated and to maintain discipline in the school. In these circumstances, if applicant has been posted out from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andrews Ganj to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fatehgarh, it cannot be stated that the transfer is punitive specially when in para 8 (iv) of the transfer guidelines there is specific provision for such a transfer. To be precise, para 8 of the transfer guideline reads as under:-
8. Administrative Transfers on other grounds:
Besides transfers to eliminate surplus, as indicated in Para 7 above, other administrative grounds on which staff may be transferred are as follows:-
(i) --- --- ---- (ii) --- --- ---- (iii) --- --- ---
(iv) On grounds of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by issue of a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or imposition of a major penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
(v) --- --- --- (vi) --- --- ----.
10. From above it is clear that the guidelines very much provide for administrative transfer on the ground of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance by mere issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
11. Admittedly, in the instant case applicant had been served with a charge-sheet with serious allegations because he was stated to have shouted at the Vice Principal and had threatened in the presence of other staff, therefore, it cannot be stated that transfer is in violation of statutory rules or due to any mala fides. Courts can interfere in case of transfers only when these points are proved. It is now well settled by Honble Supreme Court that in matters of transfer courts should not interfere in a routine manner. Who is to be posted where, should be left to the administration to decide.
12. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors, AIR (1991) SC 532, Honble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and on administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest.
13. In the case of State of U.P.& Ors. vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SC SLJ 42, it was held: Even challenge to transfer on account of malafide must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or based on concrete materials. Mere allegations of malafide or on consideration borne out of conjecture or surmises without any strong and convincing reasons cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
14. In State of M.P. and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others reported in 1995 (3) SCC 270 it was held as under:-
The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfer of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation . In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.
At this juncture it would also be relevant to refer to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and Another reported in 2004 (4) SCC 245. In this respondents had challenged his transfer on amongst others, the ground that he could not have been transferred without deciding the departmental enquiry. Stand of Union of India was that the transfer was done in public interest and on account of exigencies of administration. It was pointed out that the respondents not only misbehaved with the Director (Postal Services), a senior lady officer, she was confined and dragged from one room to another and this was done with a view to force her to withdraw the charge sheet against the Deputy Post Master. She was abused in filthy language and was physically manhandled and this conduct of respondents was certainly unbecoming of an employee, therefore, and with a view to enforce discipline and to avoid recurrence of such unfortunate incident, they had transferred the respondents whereas contention of the respondent per contra was that since in the transfer order itself, it was mentioned that the employees were undesirable, as they had misbehaved, there ought to have been an enquiry to find out whether there was any misbehaviour committed by the respondents, or that they were undesirable as stated before effecting their transfer.
15. After considering rival contentions, Honble Supreme Court upheld the transfer by observing as follows:-
13. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any mis-behaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated.
16. From the above judgments, it is clear that in case misbehavior is reported, it is not necessary that first charge should be proved. Transfer in such circumstances is generally ordered to maintain discipline and to arrest a situation from becoming worse. After all teachers are supposed to be role models for students and if teachers themselves indulge in using abusive language against superior officer, definitely it is not in the interest of either the students or the school concerned as it leaves its imprint on young minds. Transfer is resorted to keep the atmosphere congenial instead of polluting it further by allegations and counter allegations.
17. Apart from above judgments, there is another reason why this case needs to be rejected. I have been informed that even though applicant was transferred as back as on 21.3.2007 to Kendriya Vidyalaya Fatehgarh from Kendriya Vidayalaya, Andrews Ganj, Delhi but till date he has not joined at the place of his posting in spite of the fact that no stay was granted by the Tribunal. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2006 (9) SCC 583 wherein it was held as under:
A government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for wok where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. Such tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.
18. Applicant has not been able to satisfy why he did not join at the place of his posting. In these circumstances, no case is made out for interference. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (J) Rakesh