Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Venkateswarlu Gadde vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 8 February, 2023
S i OA SIOMOT 2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00712/2022 > "P na Dated git the' aye of February Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM: HON'BLE MR T JACOB, Member(A} & HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (1) ve Venkateswarlu Gadde o Late Shri, Ramaieh Gadde hee about $4 years Occ: Administrative Officer, CSIR-SERC Faramani, Chennai -- 600 113 : Tamil Nadu State. Applicant By Advocate M/s. 8. Aravind Raj Ys 1. The Union of India rep. by the Director General Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg New Delhi ~ 110 O11. 2. Dr N. Anandavalli Director, CSIR-SERC Tarainani, Chennai -- 600 (13. Tamil Nadu State. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar (RI) Mr. V. Vijay Prasanth (R2)} 2 OA 31Q/OOTI 2/2022 ORDER
{Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Lato Baswara} Paine, Mempber(J) By this OA the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"To quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated
02.05.2022 and CSIR OM No. 3-20(72)/2022-ET dated:
OS.08.2022 both issued by R-1 as 'clearly Ulegal, malafide, arbitrary and in violation of Transfer and posting guidelines and also in clear violation of the applicant's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution al India and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deam fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render fustice."
fo.3
The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant in nutshell- The applicant while working as Administrative Officer at HCT, Hyderabad was transferred to CLRI, Chennai in the same capacity in public Interest on 30.05.2021 and 03.08.2021 and again transferred to 2™ respondent office, SERC, Chennai on 24.09.2021, just after completion of l month of service at CLRI in the same capacity in public imerest. Again, the applicant was transferred to CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat in the same capacity vide impuened transfer order dated 02.05.2022 in public interest and he was relleved on 04.05.2022, Hence the applicant was transferred 3 snes within 6 months in the same capacity In public interest. Whereas as teh OA 31O/O07 12/2022 per CSIR Transfer and Posting Guidelines, normal minimum tenure is 5 years Ina station. Hence the applicant had filed OA 405/202 and this Tribunal directed the I" respondent to consider his representation dt. 06.05.2022 and pass order in accordance with law The respondents passed order on his representation on 05.08.2022 which is not a reasoned and speaking order wherein it did not take into consideration the question of frequent transfers in case of the applicant, Hence this OA.
3. The respondents have entered appearances through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement. Ut is stated that by the reply filed by Respondent No.{ that the applicant has been transferred against the vacant post at CSMCRI, in public interest in terms of clause TV.3 of TPC Guidelines of CCOs dated 01.01.2019. The provision of para 1V.3 of CSIR TPC Guidelines dated 01.01.2019 has an overriding effect on_all the other provisions of TPC guidelines. Hence in view of the administrative exigencies and public interest involved in the transfer, relief under other provisions of the guidelines cannot be claimed as a right. Further it is submitted thet the applicant's complaint against Dr N. Anandavalli, Dkrector, SERC on the charges of corruption and illegal activities alleging that his transfer order has been issued at the behest of the Director, SERC, whereas he had not raised any such issue/incident in the past and he has levelled the allegations only after his. transfer to CSMCRIL Leamed counsel for the respondents relies on the following judgment in support of qe.
oS oo hed oa oS oS = ted wea i KS oe fr ars their contentions:
{i}. The case of UOL and Ors Vs Janardhan Debanath and Ors In Civil Appeal Nos. 1010-1011 of 2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. {it} In the matter of State of ULB. and Others Vs Siva Ram and Others in in the matier of Civil Appeal No. 3003/2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Gi) In the matter of Rajendra Singh and Others ¥s State of UP in Civil Appeal No. 4975/2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India {iv} The case of Commissioner of Fishenes Vs MB Terolin Vincent & another in WA. Nos, 1422 and 1480 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Madras High Cawt Henee prays for the dismissal of the OA.
4. The second respondent has also filed ber reply statement and submits that the applicant's complaint agsinst this respondent was done only afier passing of the impugned order of transfer and hence the same cannot be said to have bearing on the validity of the order of transfer. Further i is subunitted that the applicant only to invoke the ground of malatides, the applicant has impleaded the 2" respondent as a party in his personal capacity in the OA,
3. The applieant has Sled his rejoinder to the reply of the respondents | and the respondents have also fled their reply to the rejoinder fled by the applicant.
§ OA FOVOOT T2032
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record,
7. As alleged by the applicant the applicant was transferred three times within a period of 8 months that is G) CSIR-HCT, Hyderabad to CSIR-CLRI, Chennai vide OMs dated 30.03.2021 and 03.08.2021
(ii) CLRI, Chennai to CSIR-SERC, Chennai vide OM dated 24.09.2021 on completion of one month of service at CLRIL (8) SERC to CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat vide OM dt. 02.05.2022. &, Admittedly this is the second round of litigation against the said alleged impugned transfer order dated 02.05.2022 from SERC, Chennai to CSMCRI, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. By fling OA. 40S/2022 this Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 10.06.2022 has directed the respondents te consider the representation dated 06.05.2022 of applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Thereby by order dated 05.08.2022, the respondents competent authority has considered his representation in detail and pass a reasoned and speaking order. After considering all aspects the respondents in theit order stated that as the applicant in his whole carrter of about 17.5 years as CCO remained posted at Hyderabad of at Chennai only. Itis alleged by the applicant that since he has raised complaint against private respondent no. 2 on the charges of corruption and illegal activities the said impugned transfer has been effected. However, the sald transfer is nothing to do with the complaint 8 : OA 310/07122022 since the same has been raised by the applicant affer the said transfer. Purther the competent authority has already mentioned in their speaking order that cognizance over the said complaint will be taken up separately and they will investigate the issue. As the transfer of the applicant is purely on the ground of administrative exigencies, in public interest and In accordance with Clause [V3 of TPC Guidelines of CCOs. dated &1,01,2019 and against the post lying vacant at CSMCRE Also the said TPC guidelines. has an over riding effect on all other provisions of TPC guidelines.
%. As rightly pointed out by the respondents in their reply as well ag in the sald speaking note, the Government servant has no right to be posted {orever al any one particular place or place af his / her choice. In support the respondents have already pointed out that the applicant after his appointment as SOUG) on 11.02.2005 through out his carrier he remained posted for approximately 1] years at Hyderabad and 6.5 years at Chennai, As far as his previous transfers and postings are concerned immediately akter the issue of transfer orders instead of following the transfer orders he has requested by letter dated 6.12.2004 to post him at Hyderabad. Further by letter dated 30.09.2005 he requested to transfer from SERC to NGRI or CCMB, Hyderbad and subsequently by request letter dated 10.01.2007 he requested to cancel his transfer to CECRI Karaikudi and to retain Aim at SERC or to transfer to Hyderabad, It is also to be noted that all his request ? CHA 310/007 12,0029 has been considered on the earlier occasion by the respondent competent authority. :
10. Et is to be noted that the applicant was promoted as administrative officer on 29.12.2020 and was allowed to continue in ICT due to COVID situation. As he was due for transfer on his premotion he cannot say that this is a short transfer within § months as rightly pointed out by the respondent authority, (1. In respect of case cited by the applicant that is Shri. AK. Roy whe has been transferred 10 times during his service and posted at four different stations and while disposing his OA the court has only directed the respondents to consider his request. Accordingly considering his personal and family problems and on humanitarian view Mr S. K. Roy's transfer pasting has been modified.
12. In support to justify the stand of respondents action, Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the following judgments:
i. The case of UO! and Ors Vs Janardhan Debanath and Ors in Civil Appeal Nos. 1010-1011 of 2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. it, While observing the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 5005/2004 in the case of State of ULB and Others Vs Siva Ram and Others wherein at para 5 itis beld as under:
The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 {in short the Constitution') had gone into the question my g . CIA SINTER ROW as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, That would esseriaily require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since iransfer of a particular employee appuinted to the class or category of transterable posts from one place ta other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary tog in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of iransfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated ta be im violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribanals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substiining their own decision for that of the employermansgement, as against such orders passed in the interest of adminisirative exipencies of the service concemed, This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Lid. v. Shri Bhagwan and Aor, (2001 (8) SCC 374), ub The matter of Rajendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P in Civil Appeal No. 4975/2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein at para S itheld that:
"S$, A Government Servant has no yested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is Hable to be transferred in the adminisirative exigencies [hom one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or. position as long as he desires [see State of ULB v. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402]. * § | 9 OA 310007122022 iv. The case of Commisstoner of Fisheries Vs MB Jerolin Vincent & another in W.A. Nos. 1422 and 1450 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Madras High Court wherein paras Tl and [4 reads as under?
1} The term frequent transfers does not mean one or bvo transfers within a period of four months. The term sSrequant transfers means there should be more than three transfers within a short span of time, which dislocates an employee and his family set up, as well. in the case on hand, there are only two transfers, one is fromm Thoothukudi te Chennai and the other is from Chennai to Nagapattinam, within a period of one year, which cannot fall under the ambit of the term frequent transfers. Thus, the contention of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein that she is suffering - from. the vice of frequent transfers, does not merit acceptance. ;
14, In Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and anmher [(1993} 1 SCC 148], the Supreme Court held as under:
7.8 & XR x It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set-up of the concemed employees but on that scare the order of transfer is not Hable to be struck down.
Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should net interfere with the order of transfer, In a transferable past an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficuities are matters for consideration of the department. x x x x x 145 Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Siva Ram and another, [(2004} 7 SCC 405], the Supreme Court held as under: .
5. XX xx ¥ No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be pasted forever at any one particular place ar place of his choice since transfer of a particular employer appointed to the class or category of transferable posts frorn one place to other is not only an incident, but a 12 OA BIOMOL 2082 condition of service, necessary toa in public interest and efficieney in the public administration. Untess an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer'management, as against auch orders passed in the Interest of administrative esigencies of the service concemed. x x x x 16 Besides, in State of Utar Pradesh vs. Gobardhan Lal, (20043 11 SCC 402], the Supreme Court held as under' % XXX XxX Transfer of an employee is not only an- incident inherent in the terms of appomiment bet alse impliclt as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication te the contra, In the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of 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 g maticr of course ar 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 opporiumty to the officer or servant concerned te approgch their hivher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority fo 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 prospeets 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 dé interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed 'supra, shown to be vitlated by mala fides or is made in violation of any i Ga 310007122022 statutory provision, 17 That apart, in Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2009) 14 SCC 178], the Supreme Court held that transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in terms of appointment, but also, implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary.
13. It is to be noted that according to the guidelines for Transfer and Posting of Group 'A' and 'B' Common Cadre ORicer of CSIR, there are three categories of transfer in that 1. Normal transfer 2. Transfer on awn request to a choice station, 3. Exigent transfer/transfer in public interest, The extract of the guidelines for transfer reads as under:
"TV. Norms, Perfodiclty and Tenure:
1. Normal 'Transfer:
G) All the Group 'A' & 'B' Common Cadre Officers will ordinarily considered for transfer afler 05 years of stay ata Station. While doing it will be ensured that all the three 'head af administrative wings Le. Gen, Admin., F&A and S&P in a CSTR Establishment are pot moved simultaneously,
(i) To the extend possible, every Group 'A' CCO should have a minimum tenure of five years in two different zones.
GH)... ;
". Transfer on own request to a choice station
3. Exigent Transfer/Transfer in public interest . Notwithstanding any provision of these guidelines, the Group 'A' CCOs are Hable to be transferred at any time to any CSIR Establishment by DG, CSIR in public interest (ic. functional needs or in public interest}. In case of Group 'B'CCOs this authority vests in JS (Admn.) CSIR It is to be noted that the first transfer on promotion dated 29.12.2020 was actually effected on 30.03.2021. However in the administrative exigencies for the public interest at large the present transfer from CSIR-
SERC to CSIR-CSMCRI has been issued by the competent authority, In ig DA SUNNOT 22022 the circumstances in our considered opinion the applicant has been transferred in the administrative exigency towards the public interest at ~jarge and. that is to in accordance with the transfer TPC guidelines. Therefore nainterference is called for hence OA is dismissed. No order jwiet te aant reyes eepntn og ut saint ne enna cen bene eaten be etlag an Spdetneemnememimenense Se ES niin amen nieneininnianama sense ei catenin : :
i : é / DL SSAA aetna et SE USE S rae tects ie gang Setanta ap ecth! }