Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Kumar Gupta vs Defence Production on 30 January, 2024
1
OA 1980/2023
C-5/Item-19
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A./1980/2023
M.A./25/2024
M.A./4039/2023
Order reserved on :09.01.2024
Order pronounced on :30.01.2024
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Amit Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Shri K.M.L. Gupta
Aged about 51 years
R/o 82 C, CPWD Colony, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057 ...Applicant
(Through Ms.Mahima Rathi with Ms.Pragya Rathi,Advocates)
Versus
1. Ministry of Defence
Through Secretary, Defence Production Department,
Room No.135, South Block,
New Delhi-110001
2. Directorate General of Quality Assurance,
Through its Director General, HQ
Room No.105, `B' Block, Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
3. Additional Directorate General of Quality Assurance
(Electronics)
Through its Additional Director General
Room No.105, `B' Block, Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
4. Additional Directorate General of Quality Assurance
(Policy Planning and Training)
Through its Additional Director General
Room No.105, `B' Block, Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
5. D (JCM)
Ministry of Defence,
Room No.136, `B' Wing,
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi ... Respondents
2
OA 1980/2023
C-5/Item-19
(Through Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"8.A. Quash/Set aside Transfer orders dated 22.06.2023 and 03.07.2023.
B. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Charge Man Garde II at Senior Quality Assurance Establishment of the Respondent Organisation at Jabalpur. During his service career, he has been posted to Ghaziabad, New Delhi and Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 17.07.2019, the Respondents sought volunteers for posting of AE(QA) for their New Delhi establishment of Directorate of Policy Planning and Training.
The present applicant volunteered to join the said establishment vide letter dated 11.11.2019. The said communication (Annexure -A4) reads as follows:
"2. This Dte had sought volunteers for posting of AE (QA) vide letter of even no. dt. 17 Jul 19 referred at para 1(a) above. DQA(R&S) has forwarded name of Shri Amit Kumar Gupta AE (QA) of SQAE (L&S) Chandigarh, against this vacancy, vide their letter at 1(b) above.
3. The competent authority, DG, DGQA has approved proposal for permanent posting of above-mentioned officer 3 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 to DQA (PP&T), from SQAE (L&S) Chandigarh against an existing vacancy.
4. In view of the above, it is requested to issue posting order of Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AE (QA) from SQAE (L&S) Chandigarh to DQA (PP&T), New Delhi, against an already existing vacancy."
2.2 In pursuance to the above approval and relieve order dated 26.11.2019 by the Chandigarh Office of the respondents, the applicant joined at New Delhi on 9.12.2019. Vide order dated 22.06.2023 (subsequently amended as on 26.06.2023), the respondents transferred the present applicant to Jabalpur and directed him to join at the new place of posting by 30.06.2023. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed present OA seeking the above mentioned relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
4. Vide order dated 12.07.2023, this Tribunal granted Interim Relief in the form of :
"14. In view of above, the interim relief prayed by the applicant is granted. The operation of transfer order dated 26.06.2023, relieving order dated 3.07.2023 and movement order dated 7.07.2023 are stayed under further order(s)."
5. The applicant in his OA and through his counsel during arguments has taken the following grounds in support of the relief sought in the OA.
4OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 5.1 The first ground taken by the Applicant is that the order date 22.06.2026 (26.06.2023) is based on biasness and malafide on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant refers to the slip-sod manner in which the transfer order was issued by the respondents. The initial order was shown dated 22.06.2023 but it was not uploaded on the web site of the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents issued clarification vide communication dated 3.07.2023 (Annexure-A2) that "The letter date is erroneously mentioned as 22 Jun 2023 instead of 26 Jun 2023. Amendment may please be carried out accordingly." The learned counsel for the applicant emphasizes that this shows the deliberate action on the part of the respondents to transfer the applicant in a jiffy to a far of place like Jabalpur. 5.2 The respondents have transferred the present applicant before the expiry of the transfer policy of the respondents issued on 24.11.2016. As per the said Transfer Policy, the normal tenure of an employee at a particular place is three years , which was subsequently amended to five years vide policy dated 10.02.2017. By the date of transfer i.e. 26.06.2023, the applicant has completed 3 ½ years at New Delhi.
5.3 The present applicant was elected as General Secretary of All India DGQA Engineers Association on 24.09.2020. The 5 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 said association is recognized by the Respondents vide circular dated 24.09.2020. The Applicant claims that as a General Secretary of the association he took up various matters regarding the rights of the members of the association with the respondents. The respondents were forced to take prompt action in view of the persistent efforts of the association. However, the got piqued due to the action of the Union. This is precisely the reason the respondents are not favourably inclined towards the applicant; rather they are biased against the applicant.
5.4 The learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondents have posted the present applicant to Jabalpur to a non-existent post. The post at Jabalpur has not been upgraded to the rank to which the present applicant belongs to. Moreover, there is no administrative exigency shown in the transfer order for transferring the present applicant prematurely. The transfer orders were earlier issued by Deputy Director (Admn), but in case of the applicant it has been issued by Col JCO-1(QL). Moreover, as per transfer policy, a committee should have looked into the transfer matters and recommended appropriate deployment of the manpower with the respondents. In the instant case, no such recommendation of any committee is cited by the respondents.
6OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 5.5 The respondents are following the policy of pick and choose in transferring the present applicant, whereas they have retained one Raj Kumar at head quarters, though the latter employee has completed the mandatory 5 years at Delhi.
5.6 The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the OM dated 18.11.1960, five members of the All India DGQA Engineers Association are allowed to main at the present place of posting and they are not covered under the general transfer rules. The present applicant is the General Secretary of the All India DGQA Engineers Association. This provision is indirectly supported by the policy decisions on 08.04.1969 where it has been stated that General Executive of the Union and two other office bearers be granted facility of seeking transfer to the Headquarters of the appropriate head of administration. This provision indirectly supports that the office bearer of the Association have the privilege of not being disturbed as compared to other normal employees.
5.7. Learned counsel for the applicant further drew attention to the OM No. 09(03)/2018-D(JCM) dated 26.10.2018. Para 2 (vii) of the same reads as under:-
*2(vii) Facility of seeking transfer of Chief Executive of the Association to the Headquarters of the appropriate head of administration. If the transfer to the Headquarters involves exemption from Field 7 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 duty, such transfer facility should be restricted to Chief Executive/General Secretary and one other executive member of each of the recognized association. However, when specific guidelines are available in any particular department in this regard, those instructions apply."
5.8 The third ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the present transfer is in the form of a punishment and it is arbitrary in nature. This transfer has been affected because the present applicant is the General Secretary of the Association and he had been pressing for various demands pertaining to the engineers working in the Establishment. The authorities have been feeling uncomfortable because of his persistent demand for the welfare of the Engineers and that is one reason why he has been transferred out of Delhi.
5.9 To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for applicant cited the judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA Nos. 292 to 294 of 2020 decided on 23.03.2021 in Sanjay Kr. Vs. UOI and Ors. The Tribunal vide the said order analyzed various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and Apex Court regarding transfer.
Particularly, she drew attention to para 22 of the said order. The relevant portion reads as under:-
"A similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment MANU/TN/8526/2006: 2006(2) CTC 468 (S. Sevugan v. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar & Anr.) which observed at Paras 7 and 8 as follows:8 OA 1980/2023
C-5/Item-19 "7. It is seen from the impugned order of transfer that it is passed on administrative ground, but it appears that the order was passed by way of punishment and based on the complaint against the conduct of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity defend himself as to whether to the complaints against him by the Public or by the Headmaster are proper or not by way of an enquiry.
8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the transfer order passed by way of punishment is without any opportunity to the petitioner and on the face of it, the order of transfer is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside."
5.10 The learned counsel for the applicant rests her case by summarizing her arguments that the respondents have acted against the applicant in a malafide manner, with a vengeance and the actions of the respondents smacks of biasness and the transfer order is punitive in nature. In view of this, she avers, that the transfer and movement orders need to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, avers that the transfer order has been issued by the competent authority. The transfer has been effected by the recommendation of the Committee constituted by the respondents. He referred to Annexure WP-15 attached to the additional Documents submitted by the respondents. This Committee considered the administrative exigencies of the respondents and recommended transfer of five AE(QA) rank officers including the present applicant. Based on such 9 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 recommendations, the respondents effected the transfer. Furthermore, the respondents took the decision to post one AE(QA) at Jabalpur in response to the request by the Jabalpur Unit head (Annexure-A3). In view of this, the averment by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no administrative exigency at Jabalpur is not tenable. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly argues that the question of administrative exigency is the prerogative of the administrative authorities.
6.1 The learned counsel for the respondents denies that there was any bias or mala fide on the part of the respondents in transferring the present applicant. The respondents have not adopted any discriminatory policy in such transfer. The applicant was not the only employee who got transferred vide the impugned transfer order. The applicant was one of the three AE(QA) who were transferred vide the said order. The clerical error in dating the order should not attract biasness or mala fide on the part of the respondents. It is the prerogative of the administrative authorities to upgrade a particular position in Jabalpur to the rank of AE(QA) and also to post a AE(QA) rank officer in preparation of such upgradation. Hence, he avers, that too much should not be inferred from the proposal to upgrade one post of junior rank to that of AE(QA) at Jabalpur. 10 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 6.2 The learned counsel for the respondents further avers that, the Transfer policies are guidelines only. Those policies, being executive decisions, may be relaxed or changed depending on administrative exigencies. The clause that an employee ordinarily should not be transferred prior to completion of five years' tenure does not provide a vested right on the employee to stay at a particular place of posting. Administrative exigency, as pointed out by the requirement of such rank officers at Jabalpur and recommendation of the Officers Committee, necessitated the redeployment of the present applicant to Jabalpur.
6.3 The learned counsel for the respondent further argues that the policy that the Office Bearers of the Unions should not be ordinarily be transferred out from headquarters also does not confer a vested right to such office bearers to stay at the headquarters in perpetuity. He referred to the Ministry of Defense OM dated 10.04.1956 (Annexure R-6) which says that such office bearers may be transferred on account of administrative exigencies. The OM states:
"TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS WHO ARE OFFICE-BEARERS OF A RECOGNISED UNION ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS Reference: Ministry of Defence letter No. 2735/D Appts dated 2-4-51 as amplified by Office Memorandum No. 23(11)55/D-Appts dated 21-7-55 A question has been raised whether the important office-bearers of recognised Trade Unions and Associations (including members of the Executive Committee of the all India Defence Employees Federation) are to be immune from transfers and are to be retained at one station 11 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 indefinitely. The position is clarified as under for information and guidance:-
(i) Where a normal term on tenure is prescribed for stay at a Station :
Those who are office-bearers at the time of the expiry of their normal term of tenure of stay at the station, will ordinarily not be transferred from the station till their then current term as office- bearer expires and if they are re-elected as office-bearers at the end of that term such re-election will not normally entitle them to further deferment of transfer;
(ii) Where no normal term or tenure is prescribed for stay at a station but transfers become necessary for administrative reasons and these transfers are carried out on the principle of longest stay in the station :
Those who are office-bearers at the time of their turn for transfer, will normally be allowed to continue to serve at the station till their then current term as office-bearer expirers and if they are re- elected as office bearers at the end of that term such re-election will not normally entitle them to further deferment of transfer."
The learned counsel for the respondents states that a plain reading of this OM does not lead anyone to derive the conclusion that the office bearers of Unions have a vested right to be stayed put at particular station irrespective of administrative exigencies.
7. I have heard the averments by both the counsel carefully and perused the records of the case thoroughly. The learned counsel for applicant has made a valiant attempt to colour the administrative exercise of a transfer as biased, mala fide, discriminatory, in nature of punitive action as the applicant was an office bearer of the Union. She has made this attempt by citing office notings, and arguing that the respondents did not produce the 12 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 recommendations of the Officers' committee regarding transfers at the time of filing counter affidavit and that the proposed upgradation of the Jabalpur station has not happened till date. Her contention that there was no vacancy of AE(QA) at Jabalpur has been rightly countered and falsified by the learned counsel for the respondents by drawing our attention to Annexure-A3 produced by the applicant in this OA. The contention that the transfer order is punitive in nature because the applicant annoyed the respondents by persisting to accept the genuine demands of the Union Members is a mere assertion without corresponding substantiation. Any office bearer of a union can always take this convenient plea that his/her transfer is on account of the union activities and hence punitive in nature. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no recommendation of any Officers' committee has also been falsified by the learned counsel for the respondents by citing the Annexure - PW15, on page
303. Hence, I tend to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant has failed to substantiate biasness, arbitrary, malafide, punitive action on the part of the respondents.
7.1 Now the question arises whether the Union functionaries like a General Secretary of a recognized Union has a vested right to stay at the headquarters. The perusal 13 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 of Annexure R-6 shows that the OMs concerning transfer of Union functionaries are executive OMs. These are best considered as guidelines. Moreover, administrative exigency will over ride such guidelines. The question of administrative exigencies is best left to the administrative authorities. 7.2 Similarly, the question of transferring an employee prior to the completion of any stated tenure as per transfer guidelines, on account of administrative exigencies, should not attract arbitrariness and malafide so that judicial review of administrative action would warrant cancellation of such transfer order. Those guidelines are ordinarily to be observed. But, administrative exigency will over ride such provisions. Otherwise, the policy will become a statute providing vested right to the employees to stay in a particular place till completion of the stated tenure, irrespective of any administrative requirement. 7.3 Transfers, deployments, redeployment or placement of organizational human resources are essential components of Human Resources Management Strategies of any organization, be it in private sector or in the Government or Public sector. These strategies are aimed at realizing the organizational goals for furtherance of mission objectives of the organization. For a government department or 14 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 autonomous organization or Public Sector Undertaking, Public Interest in the form of discharging the assigned responsibilities to these entities by the Constitution, statutory provisions subordinate legislation or delegated competencies is the charter for mission objectives. 7.4 Deployment or transfer is also the process of providing sub-entities and subordinate offices with the required human resources and support they need to be successful in their roles. This is akin to allocation of organizational resources to achieve organizational goals. Modern governments and organizations begin the process prior to adopting transfers as a redeployment tool by assessing the organization's current and future human resources needs. Following these assessments, the competent authority makes decisions how best to deploy the human resources to meet the identified needs. These include the type of human resources required, the number of human resources required, the location of the human resources, and the timing of the deployment. In Government, generally this task is assigned to an Administrative/Establishment/ Placement/Transfer Committee.
7.5 Effective utilization of service of an employee is in the very core of administrative exigency. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer his employee at any point of time 15 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 and to any work station based on administrative exigencies. Deployment of staff in the form of transfers enables realignment of human resources to new work assignments or job responsibilities to meet organizational needs or to provide opportunities to the employees gain skills and experience. Such activities are aimed at supporting employee's engagement, employee motivation and increased productivity and leadership development across all level of employees within the organization.
7.6 The position that the competent administrative authorities have a prerogative to redeploy or transfer an employee for better utilization of human resources of the organization for furtherance of organizational mission objectives have been well settles in several case laws by the Apex court. The employee in a transferable job does not have any vested right to remain at a particular place or post. The counsel for the respodents has cited the judgments in Gujrat electricity Board vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (CA No 3561 0f 1986 decided on 31.3.1989). This judgment of the Apex court has been reiterated in a series of judgments by the Apex Court.
7.7 The Apex court in Union of India vs S.L. Abbas, CA no 2348 of 1993 decided on 27.04.1993 has again reiterated similar position as under:-
16OA 1980/2023
C-5/Item-19 "6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government Service.
Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute."
"He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force."
7.8 Again in Public Services Tribunal Bar Vs State Of U.P. & Another on 29 January, 2003 [Appeal (civil) 3946 of 2001 Date of Judgment: 29/01/2003] it was held :-
"Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the courts. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner.
From the above quoted decisions, it is evident that this Court has consistently been of the view that by way of interim order the order of suspension, termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court."
The transfer policies are in the form of executive guidelines. And hence, these have no statutory force. The aforementioned case laws affirm the prerogative of the government to transfer its employees to ant place of posting for administrative exigencies. The transfer guidelines are subservient to public interest. 7.9 In State of UP & Ors Vs Govardhan Lal, CA 408 of 2004 decided 23.3. 2004, the Apex Court held that:
"6.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 17 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 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."
"8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
7.10 Here, even the transgression of the transfer guidelines has not been allowed to be interfered by the court. This has been further reiterated by the Apex Court in Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors CA No. 5550 of 2009. Para 10 of the judgment states that even if the transfer order is violative of transfer policy, the court should not interfere. It has been held that:
"In the writ petition, the transfer order has been assailed by the present Respondent No. 1 on the sole ground that it was violative of transfer policy framed by the appellant. The High Court, did not, even find any contravention of transfer policy in transferring the Respondent No. 1 from Lucknow to Calicut"
7.11 Similar view has been echoed in Rajendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, CA No.4975 of 2009 decided on 31.7.2009.
18OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 7.12 When the courts interfere in the administrative functioning of a department by entertaining the petitions against transfer orders, it creates administrative complexities for the authorities. The Apex court in State of Haryana & Ors Vs Kashmir Singh & Ors on 6 October, 2010 [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8690-8701 OF 2010] has clearly advised the courts /tribunals to desist from interfering in those matters. It has been held as under:-
"16. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. 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 Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free-play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.
18. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the High court is set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court stand dismissed. No costs."
7.13 The view that the transfer guidelines /circulars may not in itself confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus was reiterated and highlighted by the Apex Court in Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. vs. Durgesh Kuwar, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 774. It was held that:
"17. ..........An employee cannot have a choice of postings. Administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the 19 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 manner in which the transfer policy has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular may not in itself confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus."
7.14 Even the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1358 of 1994, decided on 25.02.1994 held that there is hardly any scope of judicial review of administrative action in the form of transfer orders. It has been held as under:-
"4. In our opinion, in the present case there is no material to justify interference with the mere order of transfer made by the competent authority for administrative reasons particularly when the Tribunal had rejected the respondent's assertion that the transfer had been made on account of certain complaints he had made regarding the functioning of the Dept. We have no doubt that the view taken by the Tribunal is not justified on the facts found by it. It is also not within the scope of permissible judicial review in such matters relating to mere transfer made by the competent authority for administrative reasons."
7.15 The aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court have given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. However, transfers may affect negatively the level of productivity, motivation, innovation quality, relations, and participation and communication patterns among other core human resources activities. When handled well and in accordance with the employees' circumstances, deployment increase employee performance through increased innovation, creativity, quality, productivity, profitability, loyalty flexibility, efficiency, effectiveness, and low levels of discontents, 20 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 dysfunctional conflicts. In other words, employee welfare is also in the interest of the organizations. The principles of effectiveness, efficiency and economy in matters of deployment of human resources are sought to be aligned with organizational mission goals.
7.16 While effecting redeployment through transfers, the organizations should also treat all such employees fairly and without any bias or malafide or discrimination. Moreover, a model employer like the government also treats its employees far more transparently and it is expected that the government ensures that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 Indian Constitution. Based on the twin objectives of satisfying organizational goals (public interest and better governance for delivery of public services) and employee welfare, growth and development, organizations including government departments formulate transfer /placement policies. These policies ensure transparency and also provide better opportunities to officers for excellence and more planned approach to cadre planning. Such transfer policies develop some sort of reasonable employee expectations to be treated fairly while effective redeployment through transfers. Similarly, the government departments also have reasonable expectations from its employees to cooperate in such 21 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 deployment to achieve mission goals of departments and other entities.
7.17 Earlier, Delhi High Court, based on the judgments in Shilpi Bose case (supra) and Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (supra), has summarized the scope of judicial review in transfer matters under certain circumstances: It was held that a judicial review of an administrative action is of course permissible, but orders of transfer are interfered when:-
"(a) the transfer is malafide or arbitrary or perverse;
(b) when it adversely alters the service conditions in terms of rank, pay and emoluments;
(c) when guidelines laid down by the department are infringed;
(d) when it is frequently done and lastly;
(e) if there is a statutory infraction."
8. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to convince this Tribunal that the transfer order dated 26.06.2023, and relieving order dated 3.07.2023 smack biasness, malafide, arbitrariness and punitive in nature. In view of the above, 22 OA 1980/2023 C-5/Item-19 the present OA lacks merit and hence dismissed.
Pending MAs also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /dkm/