Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahender Singh vs Union Of India on 3 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.102/2015
Order reserved on: 19.02.2015
Order pronounced on: 03.03.2015
Honble Mr. G.George Paracken, Member (J)
Mahender Singh
S/o Ram Prasad
R/o Vill. & Post Office Dharouli,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
Presently posted at Post Office Dhakha -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.N. Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1.
2. The Director Postal Services
Haryana Circle, Ambala-133001
Haryana.
3. O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Rohtak Division, Rohtak-124001
Haryana -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Sharma)
O R D E R
The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 transferring him from the present place of posting as SPM Dhakla S.O. to SPM Mandauthi S.O.
2. According to the applicant, he was posted at the present place of posting only on 17.05.2013. During his service, vide his letter dated 07.11.2014, he brought to the notice of his superiors that there were at least 500 Recurring Deposits which have been opened but were not shown anywhere in the office record, the Pass Books were not issued to the respective account holders and SB Account No. 885013 was opened with Rs.1600 as entered in the passbook but it has not been reflected in the department account. He has also informed his superiors including the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices that because of the above irregularities, he was facing difficulties for withdrawal of the amount from those accounts and accounts holders are making complaint against him but no action was taken against the persons in the department responsible for those irregularities. On the contrary, he was transferred by the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 with immediate effect.
3. The applicant has also stated that the aforesaid order of transfer was issued in spite of the fact that the respondents themselves were aware that he was a heart patient and he was medically examined for that purpose on 29.10.2014. On the advice of the Doctor, he has been taking medicines since then. The proof of the medical certificate has been annexed by him alongwith the OA. The applicant was not relieved after his transfer as he has been periodically submitting his medical reports to the respondents. The last report submitted by him was for the period from 05.01.2014 to 08.01.2014. According to him, his honesty was well known to the villagers of Dhakla and the Sarpunch of the village himself has written to the Chief Post Master General requesting him to keep him at Dhakla. He has also made an appeal against the transfer order to the Director Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala on 02.12.2014 stating that his transfer was made during the middle of the academic session of his children, adversely affecting the education of his children and it was difficult for him to shift them to the new Station at Mandothi. He has pointed out that he was not allowed to complete his minimum tenure of four years at the present place of posting where he was posted only w.e.f. 17.05.2013. Again, he has stated that he was transferred as his superior officials did not want to see him happy as he was having unblemished record and he is a person who work only as per rules. He has also pointed out that in order to justify the aforesaid order of transfer, the respondents, subsequently vide Memo dated 18.11.2014, proposed to take action against him under Rule-16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the Statement of Imputation against him is as under:-
Statement of imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour framed against Sh. Mahender Singh Lamba Sub Postmaster Dhakla.
Sh. Mahender Singh Lamba, while working as Sub Postmaster Bahu for the period from 30.06.2009 to 17.05.2013 failed to get the RD posting in the ledger as well as in the computer. The present SPM Bahu reported to this office vide L. No. SB/Bahu/2014 dated 24.07.2014 and 24.-09.2014 that the work of RD posting was pending during the tenure of the Ex SPM Bahu. The RD posting work was not done in the computer nor in the ledger. Accounts were opened only in SS Book. Computer showed 1669 accounts from 01.01.2007 while as per SS Book the total accounts were 2118. The accounts were only opened in the computer and thereafter no posting was done in these accounts. All the accounts became discontinued. Thus the said Sh. Mahender Singh Lamba has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 106 & 31 (5) of SB Manual Volume I. After that the pending work of RD Posting was got completed with the help of deputed Postal Assistants vide the orders of this office.
As such the said Sh. Mahender Singh Lamba is alleged to have failed to maintain devotion to duty and behaved in a manner of unbecoming of a govt. servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 (i) (ii) and 3(i) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
5. As no action was taken against the aforesaid appeal, he has filed this Original Application seeking an order quashing the impugned transfer order dated 14.11.2014. According to him, his transfer is in violation of the respondents own Transfer Policy issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts vide their letter No. 141-141/2013-SPB-II dated 31.01.2014. The relevant part of the said Policy is reproduced as under:-
4. Rotional Transfers 4.1 Officers of Indian Postal Service, Group A including Junior Time Scale/Senior Time Scale officers, shall be rotated as per Transfer Policy Guidelines issued vide Directorates letter No.4-9/2011-SPC dated 04.04.2011 and 05.04.2011 4.2 Employees of all other cadres including Private Secretaries/Stenographers and Mail Motor Service in the Department of Posts, completing prescribed post tenure and station tenure, read in conjunction with the provisions in the Postal Manual, unless otherwise specially specified, may be rotated as detailed below subject to following broad principles of rotational transfers:
a) Matching of human resource with requirements of posts and placing officials in the choice stations may be considered in the overall context of administrative requirements and austerity measures.
b) Inter-station transfers should be restricted to minimum in view of the austerity measures.
I. All such officials who are due for rotational transfers on completion of post tenure/station tenure may be asked to give at least three options of the place of posting/station with reasons to enable the authorities to consider the same while effecting transfers. However, it may be made clear to the officials that their request will be considered subject to administrative convenience and availability of the post.
II. The post tenure of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and their counterparts in the Railway Mail Service shall be four years and they shall be invariably rotated on completion of their tenure. They shall never be posted back to a particular Sub Division, in which they have already completed one tenure.
III. All other officials should be transferred on completion of their prescribed post-tenure of four years within the same stations to the extent possible. Where, it is not possible to do so without shifting some of them outside their present stations, they may be posted outside their present stations to the extent administratively feasible.
IV. If officials belonging to various cadres are waiting since long for their posting to particular stations and it has not been found possible to accede to their request for one reason or other, such pending requests for transfer may be acceded to in really deserving cases by transferring out officials having longest stay in such stations in the public interest.
V. All Sub Post Master/Postal Assistant in a single handed or double handed. Post Offices must be shifted on completion of their post tenure of four years positively, even if it involves moving out of station of their present postings. Further, as per the instructions, concerning preventing vigilance measure, issued by investigation Division of the Directorate vide their letters No. 8-4/2005-Inv dated 22.09.2005, 12.01.2012 and 05.12.2012, officials who have been posted as Sub Post Master/Postal Assistant in a single handed or double handed post office irrespective of period of posting/completion of tenure should not be posted back to the same office even after a break. In other words, officials of single handed and double handed Post Offices can have only one posting in such offices during their service period. However, Divisional Heads, subject to following conditions have been vested with the powers to consider an official, who had earlier served in the single/double handed office to be posted back to the same office or other single and double handed office in the division:
(i) The Divisional Head will satisfy himself/herself about the antecedents and character of the officials for whom the provision are being relaxed; and note to this effect will be given in the file.
(ii) No official will be posted back to the same single-handed/double handed post offices on transfer/deputation or otherwise before a break of full tenure period.
(iii) Information about cases of relaxation so exercised by the Divisional Head will be communicated to the Regional Postmaster General/Chief Postmaster General as the case may be, in a half yearly statement.
6. The respondents have filed their reply stating that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 18.04.1994 and posted in Gurgaon, Postal Division. From there, on his request, he was transferred to Rohtak Postal Division vide order dated 02.12.1999. Thereafter, he was transferred to the following six stations on his requests:-
Sr. No. Period of posting Place of Posting 1 02.12.1999 to 11.05.2000 Machhrauli 2 12.05.2000 to 31.05.2001 Dhakla 3 31.05.2001 to 25.05.2006 Sahiawas 4 27.05.2006 to 30.06.2009 Matanhail 5 01.07.2009 to 15.05.2013 Bahu 6 18.05.2013 to 21.11.2014 Dhakla According to them, he was habitual in retaining excess cash in his office. They have also stated that they have received complaints against him about his behaviour from different corners, i.e., from Gramin Dak Sevaks, Small Saving Agents as well as from the Public. Therefore, after getting the matter enquired into, he was transferred from Dhakla Sub Post Office. Further, they have stated that it is for the first time during the last 15 years of his service he has been transferred to a distant place whereas according to the provisions contained in Rule 61 of Postal Manual Volume-IV, any official transferred from the office/post should not be brought/transferred back to the same office/post until after three years of the date of his last posting there. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief sought by him in this OA.
7. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the Order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in Balbir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.561/CH/2013) decided on 22.05.2013 wherein it has relied upon various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and held that (i) transfer is only an incidence of service (ii) Guidelines has no statutory form (iii) Transfer does not affect conditions of service (iv) Transfer in public interest should not be interfered with (v) Mala fide must be proved (vi) The scope of judicial review in very limited and (vii) Documents do not tell lies. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
11. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties with their able assistance.
12. Before adverting to the merit of the case, I would like to note down that the issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Honble Supreme Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upon the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place.
13. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency as has been held in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board versus Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (A.I.R. 1989 S.C. Page 1433 ). The relevant observation of the Honble Supreme Court in this regard are as follows :-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."
In the case of Union of India versus H.N.Kirtanika ( A.I.R. 1989 S.C. Page 1774), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide."
In the case of State Bank of India versus Anjan Sanyal ( A.I.R. 2001 S.C. Page 1748), , the Apex Court has held as under:-
"4. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order.
In the case of State of U.P. versus Gobardhan Lal ( A.I.R. 2004 S.C. Page 2165), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order if transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision."
In the case of Shilpi Bose versus State of Bihar ( A.I.R. 1991 S.C. Page 532), the Honble Apex Court has held that order of transfer/posting "issued by the competent authority did not violate any of her legal right." The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his/her posting at a particular place. Similar view has again been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Siya Ram (2004(7) S.C.C. Page 405).
In Airport Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey ( 2009 (8) SCC 337 ) that `in a matter of transfer of a govt. employee, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer.' Recently in a recent case of State of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh, (2010) 13 SCC 306) , the lordship of the Honble Apex Court have held as under :-
Courts should not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Holmes, J. of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.
14. In the light of above authoritative judicial pronouncements which is binding upon us, I proceed to examine the facts of the present case. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the following three questions arose for consideration before this Court:-
i) Whether the applicant has any right to be posted at any particular station for an indefinite period?
ii) Whether the posting of spouse at the same station is an enforceable legal right?
iii) Whether the order of the transfer is vitiated by mala fide?
15. The first question is no more res-integra as the Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Union of India versus S.L.Abbas (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. Page 2444) that the Government instructions on transfer are mere guidelines without any statutory force and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer unless the said order is alleged to have been passed by malice or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. Similar view has again been reiterated in the case of Shilpi Boses case (supra), the court observed thus (Para 4):
In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. 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. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. 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. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders In the case of State of U.P. versus Gobardhan Lal (supra), the Honble Court has held as follows :-
Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.
Thus, it is clear that the transfer policy does not create any legal right in favour of the employee. In the present case, the applicant has been transferred without there be any change in his status at Delhi. It is settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by an employee that there is a breach of a statutory duty on the part of the employer. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court/Tribunal can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court/Tribunal that he/ she has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction. In the present case, it cannot be said that the transfer order of the applicant is in violation of any statutory rule.
16. The second contention that husband and wife be posted at a particular place in terms of the guidelines dated 30.9.2009 particularly para 4 clause (vii) thereof issued by the DoPT is concerned. The similar clause came for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India versus Jagjit Singh Mehta (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. Page 519) where the Lordships have observed that the terms incorporated in the transfer policy for posting of both the spouses, if in service, at the same place, require to be considered by the authorities "along with exigencies of administration" and " without any detriment to the administrative need and claim of other employees". Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:
5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All-India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an All-India Service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of All-India Service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the Officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of All-India Service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.
In the aforementioned view, the plea of the applicant that in view of the posting of his wife at Chandigarh he should not be posted else where cannot be countenanced and accordingly, second question is also decided against the applicant.
17. Taking So far as the plea of mala fide is concerned, apart from making vague allegations in the OA, the applicant has failed to place on record any cogent material in support of the said plea. Allegations of malafides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials. Merely the fact that the private respondents have not filed separate reply does not suggest as argued by the applicant that they accepted the allegation. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of malafide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. Man can tell lie but not the record. A perusal of the relevant file makes it clear that on a secret note of the applicants colleague, the matter was taken up and a self contained note was prepared at Chandigarh office by the Incharge, HOZ Chandigarh which was endorsed to ADCBI ( R ), which was ultimately approved by Director CBI on 20.4.2013 who ordered that the applicant be immediately transferred at far away place from Chandigarh. The record suggests that his transfer has been ordered in smooth running of organization because allegations against him is serious in nature. So it can safely be held that before passing the impugned order, there is proper application of mind at the highest level. The respondents no. 3 & 4 against whom allegations have been levelled are neither the competent authority nor they adjust their own blue eyed boy in place of the applicant. In the present case, I find that the applicant has failed to place on record strong and convincing material in support of his plea of malafides against private respondents and the allegations made by him in the OA do not inspire confidence. I refrain myself from commenting upon the material which is not relevant to the present controversy. Moreover it must be remembered that if an organisation has to run efficiently, sufficient flexibility is required to be given to the authority in matters of transfer of its employers; otherwise the administrative machinery may collapse. Necessary adjustments and accommodation for keeping administrative machinery in smooth gear is required at times.
18. The Honble Supreme Court has held that the allegations of mala fide is to be looked into where the Court feels that against whom the malafide has been alleged are the authority or in a position to make harm to an employee who is before the Court. Reference in this regard has been placed on the judgments passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Tara Chand (supra) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegation of mala fides, if necessary particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the writ petition and burden of establishing mala fide lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and there must be sufficient material to establish malus animus. Similarly, in the case of E.P.Royappa versus State of Tamil Nadu & Another, AIR 1974 SC 55, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. The Court further observed as under:-
"Secondly, we must not also over-look that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it.... The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and other, not because of any special status... but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy."
In the case of M.Sankaranayanan versus State of Karnataka & Others ( 1993(1) S.C.C. Page 54), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court may "draw a reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded and established. But such inference must be based on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain in the realm of institution, surmise or conjecture." In case of Hem Lall Bhandari versus State of Sikkim ( 1997(2) S.C.C. Page 9), the Honble Apex Court has held the petitioner made various allegations of mala fide against the Chief Minister of Sikkim. The allegations were not supported by any acceptable evidence. The Chief Minister did not file any counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made against him. The Supreme Court ruled It is not necessary in each and every case to call upon person placed in higher position to controvert allegations made against them by filing affidavit unless allegations are specific pointed and necessary to be controverted.
19. Some but similar question came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs Sri Janardhan Debanath & Another ( Appeal (civil) 1010-1011 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 20002-20003/2003) decided on 13.2.2004, where the lordships held that even when the transfer is carried out on compliant in public interest even then there is no need to conduct inquiry before effecting transfer. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
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. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. The judgments relied upon by the applicant does not help the applicant because these are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as narrated above.
20. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is held that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order of transfer dated 29.4.2013, warranting interference by this Court. No other point has been raised. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
8. I have heard Shri S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. According to the respondents, their own transfer policy prescribes the tenure of Sub Post Master/Postal Assistant of four years at a particular station. The tenure of an employee is so fixed, so that there is some certainty in his place of posting and his family can be settled during that period. However, in this case, admittedly the applicant was posted at the last place of posting, i.e. Dhakla S.O. only on 17.05.2013. By the impugned transfer order dated 14.11.2014 he was transferred to Mandauthi S.O. Thus, the respondents have drastically cut short his tenure. The only reason given by them is that there were a number of complaints against him. Complaints against the employees are mere allegations unless they are proved to be correct. Complaints may be true or motivated. As no proper enquiry was conducted in the matter, the respondents could not have presumed that the complaints against the applicant were correct. Further, a public servant, who is dealing with the public and if he is honest, there can be complaints from anti-social elements as well as from interested persons. To protect the honest employee at his work place is the duty of the higher officers. The respondents ought to have conducted proper enquiry on the allegations made against him and if it was found proved, they could have even punished him. Further, it is seen that the respondents have displaced the applicant from the present place of posting in the middle of the academic session of his children without any consideration of their future. Again, it is on record that the applicant was a heart patient undergoing treatment. Even the Appellate Authority has not considered any of his submissions. The respondents have also initiated a departmental enquiry proceedings against the applicant after he was ordered to be transferred. Thus his transfer is a punitive action and not in the exigencies of service.
9. As a law abiding officer it is seen that the applicant has obeyed the transfer order and he had reported for duty at the new place of posting on 16.02.2015. In my considered view, just because he joined duty at the place of his posting, this OA does not become infructuous. Applicant has made complaints about the irregularities having been committed by other officials at his last place of posting at Dhakla S.O. According to the applicant, those complaints have annoyed the Respondent No.3 and because of that he was transferred. An efficient and honest administrative system required that the guilty and corrupt officers are punished and the honest officers are rewarded. The morale of the honest officials should not be allowed to suffer by the instigated complaints against them.
10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I direct Director, Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala to enquire into the allegations made by the applicant particularly against the Respondent No.3 in his OA to find out whether his transfer was in public interest or motivated by false complaints against him. If it is found that the submissions made by the applicant in this OA are found to be correct, the officers concerned who are found responsible for his transfer shall be suitably punished. However, if there is no truth in the allegations made against the applicant, he shall be posted back to his last place of posting or he shall be posted to a place of his choice.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(G. George Paracken) Member (J) cc.