Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 9 December, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A.NO.623/CH/2011 Reserved on: 09.12.2012 Pronounced on:
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand, Member (J) Honble Mr. Khushiram, Member(A) P.S. Negi, aged 50 years S/o Late Shri G.S. Negi, presently working as Senior Technical Officer (I) Group- III (4), Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO), Sector 30 Chandigarh. .Applicant Versus
1. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), Anusandhan Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) Sector 30, Chandigarh.
3. Dr. Pawan Kapur, Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) Sector 30, Chandigarh.
4. Ms. Neeru, Senior Hindi Officer, Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO) Sector 30, Chandigarh.
..Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant Mr. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) BY HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J)
1. Though the impugned order (Annexure A-1) itself indicates that the transfer of the applicant (from CSIO Headquarters Chandigarh to CSIOs S & M Centre) Chennai herein had been ordered on the recommendation of Senior Scientists, he has applied for the invalidation of the movement on an averment that his transfer outside the cadre is not valid. While averring malafides against the private respondents, it was also averred that the job occupied by the applicant is non- transferrable and that the duties, for which he joined appointment/promotion at Chandigarh, are not available at Chennai.
2. It is not a matter of controversy that the applicant, holder of an M.com degree, came to be promoted to the present placement in the PME Cell after the competent quarters announced equivalence of M.com Degree to M.Sc. Degree for the relevant recruitment. (Masters Degree in Commerce will be treated as equivalent to M.Sc. for recruitment and assessment of Scientists in Group-III in the PME Cell set up in the Labs ----------- extraction from the original application)
3. The respondents denied averments aforementioned vide independent counters. The private respondents have denied the allegations of malafides. The official respondents denied that the applicant had been appointed to the PME Cell as a Scientist. The further averment, in the context, was that the services of the applicant are transferrable. It was averred that the applicant had been earlier transferred from PME Cell to BDG Cell in the year 2003 and no challenge thereto came to be offered by him. It was further averred that the applicant came to be transferred from BDG to the Training and Development Group of HRD in December, 2009 which too, was not challenged by him.
4. It is to state the obvious that, in the absence of proven malafides/arbitrariness/violation of transfer policy, an employee cannot grudge movement from one place to another. The Courts/Tribunals would draw an inference of bonafides in the context and the assumption would be that the transfer had been ordered in appreciation of the administrative exigencies. While quite agreeing that each case has to be adjudicated upon independently, we have only indicated a rule of judicial prudence in defining our jurisdictional limitations in the context of a challenge to a movement order.
5. We must indicate, at the very outset, that we are not persuaded to uphold the allegations of malafides, levelled by the applicant herein. It goes without saying that mere averments are not suffice to insist upon a finding of malafides against another. There has to at least a reasonable proof in support thereof. The applicant has not been able to make that bench mark in this case. As already indicated, the impugned order came to be granted on the recommendation of Senior Scientists Organization. Those scientists have not been impleaded as party-respondents to the O.A. It is not even the averment on behalf of the applicant that those scientists had any score to settle with him or were, in any manner, inimically inclined towards him.
6. Insofar as the impugned transfer order is concerned, our attention has not been invited to any documentation which could buttress the plea raised by the applicant that he had been appointed/promoted (only) to the PME Cell. For want of proof in the relevant behalf, we are not inclined to uphold the averment that the impugned transfer of the applicant is outside the cadre or is thereby invalid. There is nothing on record to warrant the acceptance of the view canvassed on behalf of the applicant that the job he is presently holding is non-transferrable. However, we would like to pointedly notice here that the impugned order itself indicates that the transfer of the applicant had been ordered on a recommendation of the Senior Scientists (of the Organization).
7. In the light of the discussion aforementioned, we do not find any force in the O.A. Holding it to be denuded of merit, it is ordered to be dismissed.
8. The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Disposed of accordingly.
(KHUSHIRAM) (JUSTICE S.D.ANAND)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PLACE: Chandigarh
Dated:
mw
- 5- O.A. No. 623/CH/2011