Bombay High Court
Yogesh Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of ... on 29 November, 2022
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Dipankar Datta, Abhay Ahuja
9-WPL.36444.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 36444 OF 2022
Colonel Yogesh Chandra Pandey } Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Smit Shah for the petitioner.
Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar for respondents 1 and 2.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2022 P.C.:
1. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner, whereby he seeks our interference with an order of transfer dated 6th June 2022. By the impugned order, he has been transferred from Mumbai to Ichapur, West Bengal.
2. The first round of litigation terminated with an order dated 20th July 2022 in Writ Petition (L) No. 19404 of 2022 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court. The order of transfer dated 6th June 2022 was directed by the Court to be kept in abeyance. The respondents were further directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7 th June 2022 and to pass a fresh reasoned order thereon dealing with the contentions raised by him. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court also set aside an order dated 22nd June 2022 of rejection of the petitioner's representation on the ground that such an order was a non-speaking order.Page 1 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PS 9-WPL.36444.2022
3. In the light of the observations made in the order dated 20th July 2022, the Director General, Directorate of Quality Assurance, Department of Defence Production, has passed a speaking order dated 7th November 2022. This order forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Masurkar, learned advocate for the respondents. We have also perused the impugned order.
5. The administrative grounds on which the petitioner has been sought to be transferred are enumerated in such order. We need not dilate on the same since we are more than satisfied that the administrative grounds, as referred to in the impugned order, could give rise to a case for transfer.
6. That apart, multiple factors have weighed in our mind not to accept the contention of Mr. Shah that a midterm transfer has been ordered warranting interference. First, the transfer policy relied upon by Mr. Shah in this regard merely contains administrative guidelines. It is too well-settled that such guidelines, not having any statutory force, do not confer a legally enforceable right. If any authority is required, we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC
357. Secondly, the posting profile of the petitioner indicates that for the last 11 years, he has been posted in the State of Maharashtra only and Mumbai has been his place of posting since 18th October 2018. The normal tenure of posting is 3 (three) years, which the petitioner has duly completed and has overstayed a year more. Finally, the ground raised that the petitioner's daughter is a student of 12 th standard and, Page 2 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PS 9-WPL.36444.2022 therefore, relaxation is available to the petitioner in terms of Guideline No. 10(d), is really of no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the fact that he and his daughter are not residents of the same city. The Director General has considered the fact that the petitioner's daughter is studying in Pune, where even the petitioner was posted for less than 4 (four) years between October 2014 and September 2018.
7. Whether to transfer an employee in administrative interest and when he should be transferred, are matters within the exclusive domain of the employer. Unless mala fide is pleaded and proved, the Court ought to stay at a distance. Also, no violation of any statutory provision has been pointed out to us warranting interference with the impugned order of transfer. In view thereof, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition.
8. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
9. If the petitioner joins at Ichapur, West Bengal within a period of a fortnight, no departmental action against him shall be taken; in default, the petitioner shall expose himself to consequences.
SALUNKE JV Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2022.11.30 19:37:31 +0530 (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Page 3 of 3 J.V.Salunke,PS