Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sanjeev Chandrakant Patil vs M/O Defence on 20 July, 2018
II II @ I
-z ''r\'JIfll'(|-v\'.rJIu'lflI(|-N"um =:
Mmm 1 OA No.358/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 358/2017 'E ThlS thefilo day of July, 2018 CORAM:- HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A).
_HON'BLE SHRI R.N. SINGH, MEMBER (J).
Sanjeev Chandrakant Patil S/o Chandrakant Bhanu Patil, Aged about 44 years, Working as a Joint General Manager, Ordnance Factory Ambajhari, Nagpur, R/o O1/23/O3, Ordnance Factory Estate, Ambazari, Nagpur~44002l.
Applicant (By Advocate Shri Adv. Shinde ) VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, South Block, New Delhi~l1000l.
2. The DGOF and Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, -mmmflA 10A, S.K. Bose Road, MPH( EE Kolkata~7OO O01. m-Am"
It =1
3. The Senior General Manager, a;i Ordnance Factory Ambajhari, § Nagpur~44O O21.
E .. Respondents (By Advocate Shri AQM. Sethna) Reserved on 17.07.2018. Pronounced on in o"-'%. freafi, O R D E,R T?
EE éi Per: R.N. Singh,'Member {Judicial} '=.='.
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant mm.
I|' -5\'.-|H'|-vw-\.I"'' E IIII H I:::::5-5-:1:':":":'5'EI-II-':":'=.'=.'=.'=.'=.:=:=:Q-::':5§'_I'§::-'=1 E;I_5_I-:%}':_I-;=E':_I::=_::.=:E:§-':-I_=':-I_=':-Z_-j:-;_=':-;_=':-;_-%':_§ > i Q' mu"
=,.
iii =.:
E i 2 OA No.358/2017 E E ::
I under Section 19 cxf the Administrative Tribunals E Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs :-- E "(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may please ix; call for ijua records of the case from tins respondents and after examining Tina same ix) direct E the respondents to guash and set aside the impugned Transfer Order -'.-
'E No.38l/4485/PER/G dated 19.09.2016. Kb). The Hon'ble Tribunal to direct the respondents ix; stay the implementation of Transfer Order '"'''I|' $L'|I é-H T?
No.38l/4485/PER/G dated 19.09.2016 till. disposal <xf this {Original Application.
Kc). The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased ix) direct time respondents to get interefactory transfer the applicant an; Pune Group cflf Factory in View of the critical health condition of the applicant's father and time medical treatment required thereto. ' ae
(d). Costs of the application be E afi provided for. ii .5 = 'E
(e). Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit ill nature anui circumstances cxf the Hflfl case be passed."
2. The applicant states that ins is working as a Joint General Manager, Ordnance Factory -2 E 2 Ambajhari, Nagpur. His father aged.eflmn; 75 years had undergone a major brain surgery of removal of E '=.='.
blood cflrn: at Inamdar Hospital, Pune i11 the year E
eg
E
2014 and he required. regular check--up enui the
Qy T
=s
Ii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --.§.:=_-€::55-_-=:;-.1,-_,-_=':-;_;;-;=:=':=_:=:='_='_:;=:_=_;=35_:E5_§:5:?,:_:_-,_;.E_,-_,-:.:,-55_53-::::_::5:;:;._::-E;E_;.:_.E_:-_::_:-:_-:_-:5I:1:355-:__::-:=_-5:,_::;_E::_i__E_E:-E_.E.::_,::_;EK:;_:-:.:,-:_;::_::._;::E-E-____________________ . -- - - - . . '{ _=.-,__________________ -- < - 3 OA No.358/2017 said. facility jJ3 not. available an: Ordnance Factory, Chanda. iflus copy cm? medical certificate and reports <of applicant's father are annexed at Annexure mA~2 to this OA.
3. It is stated that the respondent no.2 vide I.m "".mw-I Order No.381/4444/PER/G dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure '''l'''Pfi-'5I\i\'0nlfl.d'-\I|fllf A~3) has issued the transfer/posting order in public interest with immediate effect in which the IE IE applicant's runms figures am; Sl.No.51 iii the said list and he was transferred from OFAJ to OFPKR.
-2 The applicant immediately submitted two
-2 1!
-:
representations dated 30.05.2016 and 26.08.2016 to -E the respondents No.2 and 3 requesting for inter-
factory transfer on the sole ground of his father EIi 1!
-:
illness but the respondents have rejected his -:
representations and passed impugned order dated 19.09.2016 transferring him to a hard station i.e. OFCH.
4. Further, ii: is submitted that eusjper the _I
-:
Clause (4) of time Policy"<if Deployment cxf Group I!
-E 'A' Officers in Ordnance Factories, dated -2 1! 1! 1! _=ti
-:
02.11.2016 "Tenure 1J1 hard station ynjj. normally be 1indted.ti> 5 years. Zni officer will ins posted Do a soft station, out of three stations,
-:
mm..- .,;"'-.3
E?
1!
-:
1! \ IE
-2 .. . .. .. .,..<. .3;/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________ , . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ..... . . 5_____ ___ _____ - ..{ .,.=,§._.,.._.-,..--..__._...._._...._...._..II.12.:I.....<_.,_.,é._.,_:__.:.__;_.:_ -
I' I 'I
-z j! I 4 OA No.358/2017 1! IE IE indicated by the officer after completion of '''MI!"-J_"'J--Ih
-,J].-1J~'!.Id,'hn'~L-|.J_I|fl.'("
tenure at hard station." It is stated that 1! 1! applicant has already completed. tenure: of eight -:
-2 years at had station from January, 2003 to March, '"
-:
2011 at Ordnance Factory, Varangaon and now by the -2
-2 '! present transfer order respondents wanted him to -E
-E
-"E be transferred to Ordnance Factory, Chanda which is also a hard station. A photocopy of the .15
-2 E
-Ii deployment policy <1f the group 'EU Officers in IE _! E .!i E 1 Ordnance Factory dated 02.11.2016 1i5 annexed at Annexure A--6). The applicant also imade representation dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure AM7) and dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure A--8) to respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively.
5. IU: is further submitted.<i1 behalf of the applicant that tinmfl. 13 numbers (Hf IOFS Officers of JAG and STS level who were posted at OFAJ prior "U3 the posting of applicant have not been considered :fiir transfer by tins respondents enmi none of them have completed a single tenure at any of time hard. station wdn1i1 shows the malafide intention of the respondents.
6. The respondents have filed the Counter Reply disputing and denying the allegations in the I' I' /' . . . . . .. . _ _ _ _ _ __ .. . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OA No.358/2017 OA, the respondents have stated that there is no malafides attributed" to the respondents while challenging the order. It is stated that the contentions made are cryptic and with malafide intention. The applicant was transferred from Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari to Ordnance Factory Project, Korwa on functional requirement, in conformity to the extant transfer policy dated 20.05.2016. Against time sari transfer order, the father (Hf the applicant made representation dated 26.07.2016 to the Hon'ble Raksha Rajya Mantri for retention of the applicant at Nagpur and applicant submitted representations dated 30.05.2016 and 26.08.2016 for his retention at Nagpur or any other Unit at Pune or Ambarnath. The representations made by the applicant are duly considered by the Competent Authority and disposed. <of kqr regretting time request made therein. The Competent Authority has not found feasible to accommodate the applicant in the Units of his choice stations.
7. The respondents have stated that after completion cm? tenure posting an: Ordnance Factory, Varangaon which is considered to be a 'hard \ "'4.
/ _ _ -_-,:_.-_:,-;.;.;.;.;.;.;=_.-_=_-,=;= _ I-_:'.-j,-I-_5I-g'==-'-:-:-=:-;_5_=_-;-:.-_=_5 .. 6 OAN0358/2017 station', has been posted in a 'soft station', at Ambajhari, Nagpur anui working there :Um: the last six years. However, the transfer policy does not envisage that ene officer would continue to smmve iii soft station after cine tenure ll} hard station and as per the policy on deployment of Group 'A' Officers in Ordnance Factorys/Units, "Technical Offficers of JAG (Junior Administrative Grade) level and below will have a normal tenure of 5 to 7 years in a factory of his core competence, except (ii administrative reasons." Therefore, the transfer order dated 19.09.2016 has been issued in conformity to the extant policy.
8. Moreover, the duly constituted. Staff Posting Committee reviewed all the pending transfers issued prior to 31.03.2017 with respect of Group 'A' Officers in the Indian Ordnance Factories Service taking into consideration the contents and requests made in all 'the pending references from the Units and the rrmmesentations made by different officers who were ordered for transfer znui accordingly ii: was decided kn? the Competent .Authority* that. all the representations made against the transfer orders stands disposed 0 .
' ' ' ' '' ''''' ''''' ''''' ' e' 4 .:::::t.'.. 7 OA N0358/2017 of all the officers, including the applicant should be released by 10.06.2017. Thereafter, all the Unit Heads were directed for strict compliance o the above direction, vide 'order No.381/Per/G dated 02.06.2017.
9. The respondents have stated that the Transfer Order from one Unit to another in respect ci'(hinue 'A' officers ire the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) anie issued on the basis of the recommendations of the duly constituted Staff Posting Committee, consisting of all eight Addl. Director Generals working after various Operative Divisions euui Staff functions, taking ire to account tine core cempetence cm? the officers and the functional requirement at the Units in conformity with the extant policy on deployment of Group 'A' officers in Ordnance Factories/Units. It ire stated that time basic aim and objective of the policy on deployment of Group 'EV officers 111 Ordnance Factories is tie develop expertise needed. :flir the production and development of highly sophisticated safe, foole proof products and gainful utilization of the expertise. However, it ire stated tiun; that the .11 -j 1 . . . . , . .. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _._ . _\__ .55?:._;_-_::;g_=::_:..:,:_£-_;{;..:._r_g€_=:§1?:._?;:_;;§;;}.£53;;._§_g.;{,;;;_:.;_:;:;:=_;;5235-:}.fi_£::_:::_.£_€.:3E5,:-:52;:;_;__;__,__;_:-E:_5§:._:___::.:._:.:.:E__::_:_;_;_:_:._:;._:€_,_,_.: ..... ... . . . . . . .. . . . .,_ __ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _______ __ _' _ _________E _ _ _> I _ . ... . . .. _ _ _ __ . . . .----.;,=,- \ - . - . .. 8 OA No.358/2017 transfer order of the applicant has been issued on functional requirement and in public interest only. The respondents have prayed that the OA is devoid <nf merits and ire liable to kme dismissed with costs.
10. The respondents have relied upon the following judgments: I -
(i). Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa (1995 Supp (4) SCC 169). (ii). Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993 (4) SCC 357) . (iii). Union of India vs. Janardhan Debnath (2004 (4) SCC 245). (iv). Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad and Ors (2004 (12) SCC 299). (v). Tajendra Singh vs. State of UP & Ors (reported in 2009 (150 SCC 178). (vi). Union of India vs. Muralidhara Menon &
Another (AIR 2009 SCC 304).
(vii). S.C. Saxena vs. UOI & Ors (AIR 2006 (9) SCC 583).
(viiiJ. P.K. Bhattacharyya vs. Union of India (AIR 1988 (2) ATR 110). (ix). Rajendra Singh vs. State of UP & Ors 1 91/
''' '' ''H -5:?=1Ii-'E='fE'a'=.?.>'?¥I5_='-IE5-E'?A?-' . :l?.'§:?§'£~TeI5'5§rEé.§'§=I-E:3:§-§='
- .>§-Z4:E-?-Ii52%?_l..;'-§_-=.-;-i
- - -i.=_=j_ =;_:-.eI-;.-;=j...§-;j.-=j:- .. . .. E ___,:1....fl-;,;.-:-_;_=_=_-\
---- ;< é .2_ E E 1 9 OA No.358/2017 (Reported in MANU/SC/1341/2009) .
(x) . Ramakant Gajanan Rane vs. UOI & Ors delivered on 22.01.2018 in OA No.90/2017 by CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.
11. We have gone through the O.A. alongwith Annexures A--l to A--9.
12. We have also gone through the Reply filed on behalf of the official respondents.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned. counsel for the respondents and carefully considered the facts, circumstances, law points and rival contentions in the case.
14. The settled - law on the subject of transfers is clear. Respondents have relied upon the judgment of the I--1on'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pmdesh and another Vs. S.S.Ii'ourav and others, I995 (1) S.C. Services Law Judgments 350. The I--1on'ble Supreme Court 1 held that "the Court or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide oh transfer of oflicers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to iuterdict the working of the administration system by transferring the oflicers to proper places . It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless they are vttz'ated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration withoutfactual background T' I .. 1."'"'"'-'-=='='.-I-ki='$"' """"""'T§§§"""1'.'.'?.'.'.'Y§*""' E """ *-§'*'1§1'\~'/-1 \~ --------------------- -- 10 OA No.358/2017 foundation ".
15. The respondents' have also relied upon the ratio decided by the Hon'_ble Supreme Court in a case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri l Bhagwan & Shiv Prakash, 2001 (2) S.C. Services law Judgments 396, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "no Government servant or employee of Public E Undertaking has any right to be postedforever at any one particular place. Transfer of an employee appointed against a transferable post is not only an incident of an order of transfer unless -such an order is shown to be an outcome of rnalafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer ln fact High i Court was not right in quashing the transfer order on the ground that it is against the seniority rules
16. In the judgment of the Hooflble Supreme E Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State of Uttor Pratlesh and others, (2010) I SCC (L&S) 503 : (2009) I5 SCC I78, the I--lon'ble Supreme Court relying on the earlier judgment in Shilpi Bose Vs. State ofBihar, 199] Supp (2) SCC 659: 1992 SCC (L&S) I27, wherein I--1on'ble Supreme Court held that "in our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest andfor administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are rnade in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. 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 1
- --=::;:_:_-5----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________"1, Tmi i 11 OA No.358/2017 i E order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead ajfected 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 overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders
17. In Shri N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India, (l 994) 6 SCC 98 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 1304, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that :# "6. the scope of judicial review in matters of I I E I I transfer of a government servant to an equivalent I E I II post without any adverse consequence on the service E I I I I or career prospects is very limited being confined I I I I I II only to the grounds of mala fides and violation ofany specific provision. "
18. In the case of Government ofAntlhra Prarlesh Vs. G. I II I I Venkata Ratnam, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 900 wherein it is held thatzr E E "the Hon'ble High Court was guided by its own 5 notion of what would be in the Departmenfs overall E interest, and where respondent would be more suited. 5 This was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme s= |:
|:
|:
:
Court. It held that respondents could not be allowed |:
|:
II |:
[ |:
E E [ to choose his own place of posting. The Hon"ble Supreme Court allowing the appeal held that "the E |=:
|:
|:
|:
High Court judgment is wholly untenable and is |:
|:
II E |:
E rather unusual and strange. The judgment was apparently delivered in anger which might have been caused by the Government Pleader or the Director (the second respondent before the High Court). The Court not only lost judicial poise and restraint but also arrived at completely unfounded conclusions The High Court seems to have been completely taken 1 in by the tpse dixit of the respondent and his tall claims about his own ability, and virtually allowed '\%e/ E ;.-r.-.-.-.-.--- .-. -. -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - > . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. .5 . =j_-.:=.: -_-_-.;_-=.:-.-:.-_:'_-_-.:_,-_:_j_::;-3,1:,-_-5.-3:_:-_:-._-.:_.-,-:;.;.;:;.5.;_-;._;.;.;,-_:;.-,-g_;_-:;:;;:__;: =_.;.;;_;_5_;_5_;.;,5;,-;5';, . . __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ ___ _ _ _ . . . _______.. . _ _. ... , __ .... . . . . __q_ > \-._,-_:-E"?...........
_ x .- ..
E
E
r
E
2
E
E
E
E
E
12 OA No.358/2017
him to choose his own place of posting. It is surprising that the High Court castigated the respondent's transfer as lacking bona fides on flimsy and fanciful pleas. The High Court"s finding is unfounded and untenable. The legal position E regarding interference by court in the matter of transfer is too well established. The respondent's transfer neither suffers firom violation of any 5 statutory rules nor can it be described as malafide E
19. As regards timacontention of the applicant that his father aged about 75 years has undergone a major brain surgery for removal of blood clot at lnamdar Hospital, Pune iJ1'Ums year 2014, but has E not given any evidence other than recent E prescriptions. These are normal health conditions that come with age and cannot be considered to be E 5 critical conditions for seeking exemption from transfer. Besides the learned counsel for E |:
respondents state that there are three super-- |:
|:
I |:
i i E |:
E E speciality Hospitals at the runs place of pmmting [ E E |:
:
E E of the applicant and also that Nagpur is not far off from.:nnfl1 place and time applicant's father's E regular medical check-up can be taken care of at E E 2 E such places. These facts.have not been denied on behalf of the applicant. iE i |:
E |:
i
20. Hence, the ratio of all above judgments is |:
E|:
|:
i |:
E |:
E [ I E E in support of the respondents case, while the E E E I EI E applicant has failed to establish any case of '7 a~""HH#H## _.::::"II:::_._._._._.._1:._._._._:::_.__.._._::"H:
:::_.. .._... .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . _.__ ._.._.... ._. . ..___::.___: _ _ _ _ _ E:__:_;E_:.-€.5:.:_::__:_:::25-:_:E.E:3:::2-::;€:_:-E-:,::_;::_::;:_:-é:_:- . . . . . . . . . . » - _ _ _ _ ' _ _ ___
- - . . . .. : . ' '''''' ''''' ' ' ' ' "-F _ _ _ _ _ __ . . . . . . . . . . . .. T '--r.'.1r-::;.a:r.--.1.-.--;, 1 Hm -II:_ . . _ ..
E E E E E I II II E - 13 OA No.358/2017 violation.<xf any statutory rules or policies.
The applicant. himself ihas tun: substantiated aunt 2 case of mala fide or colorable exercise of powers. 2 E EE In such a situation, the transfer of the applicant E a |:
[ |:
|:
from keeping business interests in nu1wi.is in no E E E II way a violation of the transfer policy. The |:
E E |:
:
|:
II |:
|:
applicant Imus also failed txn establish any discrimination against Iran by" discriminatory application of the policy.
21. Ihi view cflf the above, tuna applicant has failed to make out any ground for interference of this Tribunal with. the impugned. order. Further, the strong case made out by the respondents does not permit this Tribunal to allow the OA as. no |:
=|:
E II II ground of discrimination, mala fides, arbitrariness or illegality, stands established by the applicant.
22. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. The E |:
|:
|:
E |:
E E |:
Interiut order' passed. earlier stands "vacated. EM; E
E
I
E
order as to costs. Q g E
5
1," .6 \geQes7 I * it
* ,,,,,rm" I tee" z
:E
<R.N.§5§} tn. vrgaxiffi/vmn)
Mmmsn (J) mtfmsn (A)
I
ak/-
E
E
E
E
II
E
.. ...... . ...... . . . . . . .... r r rrr