Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Y Chakrapani vs Environment And Forest on 13 December, 2022
1 OA No.444/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00
NO.170/00444/2022
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Sri Y.Chakrapani,
krapani, IFS,
S/o Late B.Yellappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bengaluru Urban Division,
'Aranya Bhavan' 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru,
Residing at No.309, 66th Cross,
V Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010. .... Applicant
(ByAdvocate
ByAdvocate Shri B.O.Anil Kumar )
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
And Pensions,
North Block,
Bloc Sardar Patel Bhavan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2 OA No.444/2022
2. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Dept. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Karnataka Govt. Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt.,
Forest, Ecology, Environment &
Climate Change Department,
Multi Storied Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Shri S.S.Ravishankar, IFS,
Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Now awaiting posting
Office of the Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.Amaresh for Respondent No.1, AGA, Shri
Sridhar N Hegde for Respondents No.2 and 3, Advocate Shri Satish
for Respondent No.4.)
No.4.
3 OA No.444/2022
O R D E R (ORAL
ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has challenged the notification bearing No.e No.e-
DPAR 159 SFP 2022 dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure A6) issued by the 2nd Respondent.
2. The facts as stated by the applicant in brief are that he is an IFS officer appointed as per Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, by notification dated 30.05.2022 30.05.2022, prior to which he was working as Deputy Conservator Forests, Territorial Division, Virajpet, Kodagu District from 31.08.2020 in pursuance of notification dated 08.05.2020. The applicant has taken charge to the post of Deputy Conservator Forest, Territo Territorial Division, Virajpet, Kodogu District on 31.05.2020, 31.05.2020 on his appointment by promotion to IFS cadre, he was continued in his earlier post itself.
3. The Government of Karnataka vide its notification dated 02.11.2022 has transferred the applicant as Depu Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru Urban Division, Bengaluru in place of 4th Respondent, Shri S.S.Ravishankar, transferred. The applicant was 4 OA No.444/2022 relieved from the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet, Kodogu District and reported for duty at hi his transferred place on 05.11.2022; the applicant contend that he assumed charge at the transferred place on 05.,11.2022. When the facts stood thus, the 2nd Respondent has issued impugned notification dated 07.11.2022 withdrawing the earlier notification dated 02.11.2022 with without assigning any reasons. Hence this application.
4. Learned Counsel Shri B.O.Anil Kumar representing the applicant submits that withdrawing the earlier transfer order dated 02.11.2022 by the impugned notification dated 07.11.2022 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. Learned Counsel argued that the impugned notification is contrary to the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, which stipulates the minimum tenure of 2 years and any transfer before the minim minimum stipulated period is permissible only on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board, which shall before recommending for premature transfer shall follow the provision stipulated at paragraph 3 of the schedule to the said amendment Rules . The applicant was working at Virajpet Sub- Division, Virajpet, Kodogu District since August, 2020, hence he was transferred from Virajpet Division Division to Bengaluru Urban Divisi Division.
5 OA No.444/2022The impugned order has been issued at the behest of 4th Respondent who has already already completed more than two years in Bengaluru Urban Division since 21.09.2020. The earlier order dated 02.11.2020 is spent itself and the same being being not available for withdrawal, second Respondent has no authority to withdraw the same that too without assigning any reasons.
5. Learned AGA for State, Shri Sridhar N. Hegde has pla placed the original file before us in compliance with the direction issued by us. Learned AGA made an endeavour to justify the impugned notification dated 07.11.2022.
6. Learned ned Counsel Shri Satish representing Respondent No.4 submitted that the order of transfer dated 02.11.2022 was not implemented in its true spirit, as could be seen from the charge taki taking certificate dated 05.11.2022, the applicant has assumed the charge the and such assumption of charge on the part of the applicant is contrary to law. No significance could be attached tto the charge taking certificate dated 05.11.20222, in the absence of reposting/movement order by the Head of the Forest Force, the applic applicant cannot assume the charge. This Respondent is is aware of Territorial Division, there are 6 OA No.444/2022 various projects which this Respondent is presently handling in the mid way. Taking into consideration the past experience gained by this Respondent, the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 withdrawing the order dated 02.11.2022 has been issued in public interest and to meet administrative exigencies. Learned Counsel further submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, the Respondent No.4 has taken charge on 08.11.2022 08.11.2022 and is presently working as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru Urban Division, Bengaluru. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the OA.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 stipulate the minimum tenure of two years and any transfer before the minimum stipulated period is permissible only on the recommendations of Civil Service Board, which shall before recommending for premature transfer shall follow the provision stipulated in paragraph -33 of the schedule to the said Rules. The applicant on his promotion to the cadre of IFS continued in his earlier posting at Virajpet Sub Division, Virajpet, Kodagu District, where he 7 OA No.444/2022 was working rking since August, 2020. Since Since he has completed minimum tenure of two years, years hee was transferred from Virajpet Division to Bengaluru Urban Division. Subsequently by th the impugned notification dated 07.11.2022, the said order dated 02.11.2022 has been withdrawn by the Respondent No.2.
9. We have carefully perused the original file placed before us by the learned AGA. The notings would indicate that on the directions issued sued by the superior officers, a request was made to withdraw the order dated 02.11.2022 and accordingly the file was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who approved the same. No reasons are forthcoming for the withdrawal of the transfer order dat dated 02.11.2022 within a period of 5 days, i.e., on 07.11.2022.
10. We are conscious of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 5532, wherein ein it has been held that court should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the said order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of malafide. It is true that the Government servant holding a transferrable post pos has no vested right to remain 8 OA No.444/2022 posted at one place or the other of his choice, transfer being an incidence of service.
11. The defence taken by the contesting Respondent No.4 in the reply in as much as pending projects appears to be an afterthought. It is presumed that while issuing the transfer order dated 02.11.2022 02.11.2022, all the relevant aspects have been considered. Such presumption cannot be overlooked in a cavalier manner. Withdrawal of the said transfer order just within a period of 5 days withou without assigning any reason is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Government cannot pass the transfer orders according to its whims and fancies. The Rules framed and guidelines issued for transferring of the officers has to be strictly adhered to. As we have discussed earlier, it is on the directions of the superior officers the transfer order dated 002.11.2022 has been withdrawn and thereafter the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was obtained. The question remains, who were the superior off officers and what were the reasons? Transfer orders are made in the public interest and for administrative exigencies, but the same has to be free from arbitrariness and in line with the Rules. Frequent transfer orders passed within a short span of time without aassigning reasons much less valid reasons, reasons would give a wrong message in the public 9 OA No.444/2022 domain, resulting in colourable exercise of power. Hence withdrawal of order dated 07.11.2022 appears to be tainted with malafides. In our considered view, view such an orderr cannot be held to be sustainable.
12. The order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sharath B, IAS vs. Union of India and others in OA No.444/2020 (DD 29.03.2021) has elaborately dealt with Amendment Rules, 2014 and observed that the order dated 12.03.2014 issued by the Government to keep the Civil Services Board in abeyance is invalid and ineffective since the date of its inception and being non-est non est in the eye oof law, cannot be acted upon henceforth. On further challenge before the Hon'ble High of Karnataka in W.P.No.7689/2021 connected with W.P.No.9832/2021, the same came to be disposed of with a direction to the State Government to constitute the CSB at the earliest. But no compliance is made till date, thus opening a flood gate in challenging the transfer orders on this ground alone.
13. Be that as it may, The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of Ind India reported in AIR 2014 SC 263, 263 that there should be a minimum tenure of posting for two years for the officers of the Indian Administrative 10 OA No.444/2022 Service, cannot be given a go by, by issuing and withdrawing transfer orders much against the well settled princ principles of law. We are conscious that the transfer ordinarily is an an incidence of service and the courts should refrain to interfere in the transfer orders unless they are found to be illegal. The action of the respondents in changing the mind for no reasons immediately within 5 days of issuing transfer order dated 02.11.2022 is arbitrary, perverse and illegal, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
14. For the foregoing for going reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure A6) issued by the 2nd Respondent and direct the 2nd Respondent to give effect to the transfer order dated 02.11.2022 subject to issuing posting order at a particular post to Respondent No.4.
15. Compliance of this order shall be made in an expedite manner, preferably eferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
11 OA No.444/2022
16. With the aforesaid directions, OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.