Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jitendra Nath Mondal And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 June, 1999
JUDGMENT
S.N. Mallick, Vice-Chairman
1. These three OAs. being No. 121/99 with M.A. 162/ 99, 120/99 and 122/99 have been heard on 25.5.99 by this Tribunal and the same will be governed by a common order which is passed hereby in O.A. 121 of 1999, as common question of fact and law are involved in all the three matters, although the petitioners are different.
2. It may be noted that in all the applications, respective applicants have challenged a common order dated 21.11.98 passed by the respondent authorities, whereby they have been transferred from Calcutta Office of the C.L.W. to the office of the C.L.W. at Chittaranjan.
3. Before the above applications are taken up for disposal on merit, this Tribunal thinks it necessary to put on record certain facts and circumstances as detailed below :
4. It would appear from the record that all these three applications filed on 3.2.99 came up for the first time before this Tribunal for admission hearing on 3.3.99. The Tribunal passed the following order in all the above three cases as quoted below :
"Both sides present. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the respondents, matter is adjourned to 30.6.99 for admission hearing, reply be filed within two weeks before the next date and rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. No interim order is passed at this stage.
5. Certain communication from the High Court, Calcutta was received by the Tribunal under Memo No. 502 MD dt. 20.5.99. It appears from the above communication that the petitioners moved the High Court, Calcutta for the interim order as prayed for by them being refused by this Tribunal. A Division Bench of the high Court comprising Tarun Chatterjee and S.K. Tiwari JJ passed the following order in W.P.C.T. No. 92/99, which runs as follows:-
"After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference need be made to entertain this writ application which has been moved against an order refusing to grant an interim order of stay of operation of the order of transfer passed against the writ petitioner. However, we find from the statements made in the writ application that the hearing of the application before the Tribunal has been fixed on 30th June, 1999.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the application within a period of three weeks from date.
With this observation this writ application is disposed of."
The said communication also forwarded an order dated 29.4.99 passed by the aforesaid Division Bench of High Court, Calcutta in respect of contempt application being No. C.P.A.N. No. 631/99, 146 and 147/99, which runs as follows :-
"On 8th March, 1999, we disposed of the writ petition which was moved against refusal to grant interim order by he writ petitioner by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the pending application before it within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of that order. From the present application, it tppears that a miscellaneous application has been filed by the writ petitioner for fixing a date of hearing in terms of our order dated 8th March, 1999. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner informs us that the miscellaneous application has been fixed for hearing on 11th June, 1999. It is unfortunate that although our order was communicated to the Tribunal in which we directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application within a period of three weeks from that date even then the miscellaneous application which has been filed for fixing the early date of hearing in terms of our order dated 8th March, 1999 has been fixed for hearing on 11th June, 1999. Be that as it may, once again we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the pending application within three weeks from the date of communication of this order positively without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.
Let this order along with the order dated 8th March, 1999 be communicated to the Tribunal by the department of this Court by a special messenger at the cost of the writ petitioner which shall be put in by the writ petitioner in course of this week.
With the above observations, this contempt application is disposed of."
6. None of the applications could be heard out and finally disposed of within the time limit fixed by the aforesaid Bench of the High Court by this Tribunal as the matters were not yet ready for hearing under the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act and the statutory rules of practice & Procedure thereunder. But it is clear from the aforesaid quoted orders that the Division Bench did not set aside the initial order passed by this Tribunal on 3.3.99, against which all the petitioners filed writ applications there. It is also clear that the contempt application was virtually dismissed by the above Bench concerned only with a further direction to dispose of the pending applications within a specified period of three weeks.
7. A question naturally arises whether such order passed by the High Court causes prejudice to the parties and prejudice or interfere or tends to interfere or obstruct or tends to obstruct the due course of the judicial proceeding pending before this Tribunal and also the administration of justice as entrusted with this Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. It is on record that the matters were not yet ready for admission hearing as this Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to file their reply within two weeks before 30.6.99, i.e. the date fixed for admission hearing and the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week thereafter. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, an application after it is admitted for hearing, is listed for final disposal. The application becomes ready for hearing after reply and rejoinder have been filed within the time specified by the Tribunal by an order. It may be noted that the order passed by this Tribunal in this regard on 3.3.99, which was challenged before the High Court was not interfered with. At this point, it would be relevant to refer to the specific provision of the Act and the Rules of Practice & Procedure framed thereunder. Section 22 of the Act runs as follows :-
"22. Procedures and powers of Tribunals -(1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of cases and times of its enquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private.
(2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced."
The above provision shows that an application is to be decided on the basis of documents and written representations meaning reply, rejoinder etc. after hearing oral arguments advanced by the Counsel of the respective parties.
8. Sections 35 and 36 of the Act empower the Central Government to make rules regarding procedures to be followed by the Tribunal to regulate its function.
8A. Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 framed by the Central Government provides that every application shall be heard and decided, as far as possible, within six months from the date of its registration. The said rules vested the Tribunal with the power to grant or decline an adjournment in the matter of hearing applications.
9. The Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 framed by the Tribunal itself, provides for giving time to the respondents to file reply and also to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the same. On such filing of reply and rejoinder, the application become ready for hearing. If no reply and rejoinder are filed, then also the application is to be treated as ready for hearing on the expiry of the time granted by the Tribunal. It is also provided in the aforesaid Practice Rules (vide Rule No. 40) that the matters are to be heard in chronological order, oldest among the case be included first followed by the next oldest and so on.
10. It has been submitted by Mr. R.N. Das, Ld. Sr. Counsel leading Ms. B. Ray, Counsel for the respondents that the High Court did not care to ascertain whether the application was ready for hearing. Mr. R. N. Das submits that obviously the order dated 3.3.1999 indicates that the matter was not yet ready for hearing as reply was to be filed by the respondents within two weeks before 30.6.1999 and the petitioner was to file rejoinder within a week thereafter. Mr. Das submits that he did not appear for the respondents before the High Court and the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents there did not bring it to the notice of the above Bench that the matter was yet to be ready for hearing. Mr. R. N. Das, Ld. Counsel has emphatically contended that the respondents have been seriously prejudiced by the aforesaid orders of the High Court depriving them the lawful opportunity to contest the matter by filing the reply.
11. It is needless to say, as has been contended by Mr. R. N. Das that this Tribunal is not subordinate to the administration of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed by the Tribunal are subject to judicial review of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by Mr. Das that the direction given by the High Court to dispose of the matter within three weeks without granting any adjournment to either of the parties is in the nature of an administrative order. Be that as it may, it has been clearly settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261 that such Tribunal is not within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The observation of the Apex Court is quoted below :-
"We do not think that our constitutional scheme requires that all adjudicatory bodies, which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court should be subject to their supervisory jurisdiction. If the idea is to divest High Court of their onerous burden, then adding to their supervisory function cannot, in any manner, be assistance to them."
12. It is to be borne in mind that the Central Administrative Tribunal was created and established under an Act of the Parliament giving it the full authority to decide matters specified therein according to the provision of law and in terms of the Rules of Practice and Procedure framed thereunder. Surely it was not the intention of the Parliament to establish ineffective, impotent and puppet judicial institution to adjudicate service matters as a Court of first instance divesting the High Court and other Civil Courts of that power.
13. It has been rightly contended by Mr. R.N. Das that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot treat this Tribunal as a subordinate Court so as to give direction to hear out a matter in a particular way inconsistent with the statutory provisions and the rules framed under the Act as noted above. Mr. Das has submitted that in the instant case, the salutory principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity to the respondents to contest a case by filing a reply have been denied by the above Bench of the High Court, Calcutta showing keen interest to have a matter decided in; a manner manifestly against the statutory provisions and the rules thereunder as noted above causing great injustice and grave prejudice to the respondents who have been deprived of their statutory right to contest the matter by filing written replies.
14. In view of the foregoing, I am constrained to hold that such direction prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings pending before this Tribunal and it also interferes or tends to interfere with or obstruct or tends to obstruct the administration of justice with which this Tribunal has been entrusted under an Act of the Parliament and the rules framed thereunder. I am of the view that appropriate action is to be initiated on the part of the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act in exercise of its powers and authority to proceed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This part of the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal for taking appropriate action under the provision of Section 17 of the Act read with CAT (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992.
15. Lastly, this Tribunal takes serious note of the fact that the above writ applications impleaded this Tribunal before the High Court. A judicial order was challenged before the High Court under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal was not a necessary party to the same, nor the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal was a necessary party. The order of the Bench was personally communicated by the name of the Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench by the Assistant Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court. In a case, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577 (Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors.), the Hon'ble Apex Court has condemned and deprecated this practice of impleading judicial officers, who had disposed of the civil proceedings, as parties in writ applications. The observation is quoted below :-
"There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court, nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the special leave petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the courses adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the function of the judicial officers concerned. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such practice."
This aspect of the matter is brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court for taking appropriate action in this regard against the petitioners in the writ applications, their Lawyer on record and the Court Official concerned, who communicated the order by name of the Vice-Chairman of this Tribunal.
16. Now I come to the merit of the applications. In all the three applications, the grievance of the applicants is identical. All of them have challenged the order of transfer issued by the respondent authorities dt. 21.11.98 as per Annexure A to the same. The petitioner in O.A. 121/99 appears at Srl. No. 3, the petitioner in O.A. 120/99 appears at Srl. No. 2 and the petitioner in O.A. 122/99 appears at Srl. No. 4 in the said order of transfer. The petitioner in O.A. 121/99 has been transferred and posted in Administrative Section, the petitioner in O.A. 120/99 has been transferred and posted in Costing Section, while the petitioner in O.A. 122/99 has been transferred and posted in Establishment Section of C.L.W. at Chittaranjan.
17. The case of the petitioner in O.A. 121/99 is that he joined the service under the respondent authorities i.e. C.L.W. in 1976 and was posted at Chittaranjan. Thereafter, he was transferred to Calcutta Office in 1982 and since then has been working in Calcutta at different desks (Vide para-4(v) and (vi). Immediately before the impugned order of transfer was issued, the Petitioner was working under the Section Officer/Store Finance-I from 6.6.97. So, admittedly, the petitioner has been working in Calcutta Office of C.L.W. for a period of 17 years till the filing of the application. It is also admitted by the petitioner in his representation as per Annexure 'B' dt. 3.12.98 that he was transferred to Calcutta Office on account of family problems at his own request. It is one of the grievances of the petitioner that he has been sought to be transferred from Calcutta for accommodating certain other officers working at Chittaranjan, who have been transferred to Calcutta Office at their own request. It is alleged in the O.A. that the petitioner has filed a number of representations to the respondent authorities for cancellation of his order of transfer on various grounds which have been rejected by the authorities. Annexure 'B' is the representation dt. 3.12.98. Annexure 'C' is the reply of the respondent authorities rejecting his representation which is dated 16.12.1998. Annexure 'D' is another representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.98 on receipt of the order dt. 16.12.98 as per Annexure 'C'. This second representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities by their order dt. 20.12.98 (vide Annexure-E). Annexure 'F' is the 3rd representation of the petitioner dated 8.1.99 addressed to the General Manager, C.L.W. Chittaranjan after receipt of the order dated 30.12.98 as per Annexure 'E' passed by the F.A. & C.A.O. (Administration), C.L.W. Chittaranjan. This 3rd representation of the petitioner was rejected as per order dt. 18.1.99 by the General Manager as communicated to the petitioner under Annexure 'G' and 'H'. After his 4th attempt has been failed, the petitioner has filed this O.A. 121/99.
18. It has been contended that the plea that the petitioner has been sought to be transferred to Chittaranjan on the ground that he is occupying a sensitive post in the Accounts Department for more than four years is neither correct nor just. It is further asserted that as the petitioner had undergone several inter-sectional and inter-departmental transfers during the period of his stay at Calcutta, he was not required to be transferred to Chittaranjan simply because he has been working in Calcutta for more than four years. Further ground of the petitioner is that he has been allowed to stay in Calcutta Office for about 16 years at a stretch without a complaint and that none of the employees of the Calcutta Office has so far been transferred outside the station during the last 50 years and as such the impugned order of transfer is mala fide and arbitrary and should be set aside. It is also asserted that the respondent authorities have rejected his representation on the unsustainable ground that the petitioner was required to be transferred as he was occupying a sensitive post in Calcutta for more than four years. It is also his case that the respondent authorities have not applied their mind to his representations. It is asserted that his representations have not been properly considered by the appropriate authority. Another ground taken in the application is that as he belong to Schedule Caste, he could not have been transferred to Chittaranjan. The petitioner has also taken a further ground that the impugned order of transfer would interfere the academic career of his children as it is mid-session transfer.
19. I have heard Mr. R.N. Das, Ld. Sr. Counsel leading Ms. B. Ray, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents at length. It is curious to note that at the time of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, even though the order of the High Court as noted above was obtained by him in the matter of early disposal of the case. Mr. Das has submitted that in the administrative interest, the petitioner has been transferred and the order of transfer is not vitiated by any mala fide motive or arbitrariness. In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has already been released from the Stores Finance Section with effect from 11.2.99 as per order dt. 5.2.99 (vide Annexure R/4). It has been contended by Mr. Das that the petitioner Jitendra Nath Mondal was transferred from C.L.W. & Chittaranjan on his own request as admitted in his representation as per Annexure 'B'. It is also asserted that the applicant is involved in the works, which are very sensitive in nature dealing with scrutiny of tender documents, checking purchase orders, etc., which requires direct or indirect contacts with the suppliers, for which he has been transferred after a long lapse of 16 years to the office of the C.L.W., Chittaranjan. It is also contended by Mr. Das that the petitioner is liable to be transferred as per extant rules and as such he has been transferred and the order of transfer does not suffer from any irregularity. It is also submitted by Mr. Das that the reliever of the petitioner has already joined at Calcutta.
20. Mr. Das has drawn my attention to the orders passed by the respondent authorities in respect of the representations filed by the petitioner and has submitted that the said representations have been properly dealt with by the authorities concerned by giving cogent reasons for which the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of the order of transfer could not be acceded to. Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to some letters and circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) necessitating the transfer every four years of the employees holding sensitive posts, who frequently came into contact with public and/or contractors/suppliers every four years, (vide Annexure R/2 collectively).
21. I have gone through the averments made in the O.A. and the Annexures thereto and I have also heard the submissions of Mr. R. N Das, as noted above.
22. In my view, the application is devoid of any merit. There is nothing to show that the impugned order of transfer is a mala fide, motivated or arbitrary or has been passed in colourable exercise of powers or the same is penal transfer.
23. The grounds taken in the petitioner's representations as per Annexures 'B' and 'F' are wholly personal grounds of the petitioner for which he has sought for cancellation of the order of transfer. In none of the representations, the petitioner stated that the impugned order of transfer has been issued in the mid-academic session of his children. On the other hand, it is stated that his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher in some private school at Bahirgachi. Admittedly, this is a private school, although Government aided. The second ground is that he has built his own house by taking House Building Advance from the Administration in Greater Calcutta and it is next to impossible for him to go to Chittaranjan as he has permanently settled down in Calcutta (vide Annexure 'B'). It is also stated that he did not appear at any promotional examination in order to avoid transfer back to Chittaranjan. His first representation as per Annexure 'B' addressed to the F.A. & C.A.O., C.L.W., Chittaranjan was considered and rejected by the said authority by the order dated 16.12.98. All his grounds taken in the representation dt. 3.12.98 were considered and he was informed that he had no right to continue in the small unit of Accounts Office in Calcutta permanently. He was also informed that while working in Calcutta, he was already given a promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant on 12.12.85. In the second representation dt. 23.12.98 as per Annexure 'D', same grounds were taken only adding that as his children were studying in secondary school and at that stage, it was difficult for him to leave them alone as his presence and guidance was very essential for them. No particulars were, however, disclosed as to in which class/classes his children were reading. No ground was taken that they were in the mid-academic session. Anyway, this was also considered and rejected by the authority to whom it was addressed and he was again informed that as he was holding a sensitive post for more than 16 years, his request could not be acceded to. His third and final representation as pet Annexure 'F' addressed to the General Manager contained the same and similar grounds with this exception that he drew the attention of the General Manger to the D.O. PT's letter Nos. 28084/2/97-Estt. (A) dt, 12.6.97 and 28034/7/86-Estt. (A) dt 3.4.86 recommending the posting of husband and wife at the same station. In this representation, the petitioner stressed that his case was to be considered sympathetically on the ground of his spouse. This representation was considered and rejected by the General Manager as communicated to the petitioner as per Annexure 'G' and 'G'. He was informed that the aforesaid circular was only recommendatory and not mandatory and his transfer was made in the exigency of service.
24. After going through the above materials on record, I am of the view that the respondent authorities have considered the representations of the petitioner carefully and in accordance with the rules. I don't find anything on record to find fault with the orders of rejection passed by the respondent authorities in respect of the petitioner's aforesaid representations.
25. Here is a case, where the petitioner, a Government employee, who is liable to be transferred, has remained in a particular station for more than 16 years having been transferred from Chittaranjan at his own request, stubbornly resists the order of transfer issued by the respondent authorities on ground of his personal hardship. There is no legal infirmity in the order of transfer. Furthermore, it appears from the averments made in the O.A. that the petitioner wants to impress upon the Tribunal that the transfer from Chittaranjan to Calcutta is a one-way traffic i.e. a person can be transferred from Chittaranjan to Calcutta but he cannot be transferred back to Chittaranjan from Calcutta. Furthermore, whether the petitioner occupies a sensitive post or not, the legal position is that he is liable to be transferred, which is an incidence of his service. It has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is occupying a sensitive post for about four years necessitating his transfer to another place. The order of transfer in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor does it vitiate the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. I don't find any substance in the instant application, i.e. O.A. 121 of 1999, which is liable to be dismissed.
26. Another point that has been urged in the application is that the respondent authorities have followed a pick and choose policy in the matter of transferring employees from Calcutta Office to Chittaranjan Office. It has been stated that the private respondent No. 9 has been allowed to work in Calcutta Office without being served with any order of transfer and as such the petitioner's order of transfer is mala fide. The private respondent No. 9 has not appeared in this O.A. There is no affidavit of service to show that the copy of the application was served upon her. It has been submitted by Mr. R. N. Das that this ground taken by the petitioner is totally baseless. I don't find any reason for not accepting the contention of Mr. Das.
27. Now I take up O.A. No. 120/99. The grievance of the petitioner in this O.A. is almost same as that of the earlier application i.e. O.A. 121/99. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service in C.L.W. at Chittaranjan in 1977 and was transferred to Calcutta Office in 1981 at his own request (vide Annexure 'B' - his first representation dt. 3.12.98). Thereafter, there were some desk transfers within the same office at Calcutta and since 19.9.94, he has been working as Accounts Assistant in Stores Finance Cell under the respondent authorities at Calcutta. While working there, he has been served with impugned order of transfer, whereby he has been transferred and posted at Chittaranjan in Costing Section. It is stated that the respondent No. 9, who is also working as Accounts Assistant in the same cell has not been disturbed for the last 20 years. It is contended that by the impugned order of transfer, the respondent authorities, in order to accommodate Shri P. Banerjee, S.N. Chakraborty, Apurba Saha and Anip Kr. Biswas working at Chittaranjan have transferred the petitioner and some others to Chittaranjan from Calcutta Office. This has been done at the request of the aforesaid four employees at Chittaranjan. The same ground is taken that for the last 50 years, the employees, who were working in Calcutta Office have never been transferred back to Chittaranjan. As the impugned order of transfer was cousins personal hardship to the petitioner, he made a representation to the respondent authorities as per Annexure 'B' dt. 3.12.98, which is titled as "Unwillingness for transfer back to Chittaranjan from Calcutta". The grievance is that he has already built his house in Calcutta and has permanently settled there and as such it is next to impossible for him to go back to Chittaranjan. It is also the case of the petitioner that his wife is an employee of Hongkong & Senghai Banking Corporation ltd. in Calcutta and has a minor daughter, who is reading in Class-Ill. In the representation, however, his wife's case was not disclosed. It was, however, stated that he refused to appear in any promotional examination on the apprehension that on his success he might be transferred back to Chittaranjan, This representation was considered and rejected by the respondent No. 3A, to whom it was addressed as per Annexure 'C' dt. 16.12.98. He was informed that he was working in Calcutta in a small unit of Accounts Office since his transfer from Calcutta to Chittaranjan and was also occupying a sensitive position and also that he was given a promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant on 14.2.86 while he was working in Calcutta Office. His prayer for cancellation was rejected by the said Annexure 'C.
28. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation to the respondent No. 3A dt. 23.12.98 as per Annexure 'D', wherein he pointed out his some personal difficulties to move to Chittaranjan as per order of transfer. It was stated that his wife was a Cardiact patient, that he had an unmarried dependent sister aged 29 years, that his daughter was also ill and is under medical treatment and that he had also undergone a surgical operation for which he prayed for quashing the order of transfer. It is also stated there something about his wife, which may be quoted below :-
"It is also mentioned that my wife is an employee of Hongkong Bank (Main Office) and posted in Calcutta since 1980 with a view to provide more feasibility to perform her official duties".
This second representation was also considered and rejected by the authorities as per Annexure 'E' dt. 30.12.98. There it was specifically stated that the petitioner was occupying a sensitive post for more then 17 years and that the authorities have nothing to do about the posting of his wife at or near Chittaranjan.
29. Thereafter, the petitioner field the last representation dt. 8.1.99 to the General Manager, C.L.W. as per Annexure 'F' on the same ground. Here the case of his old widow mother aged 67 years has been added to the grounds already taken in his earlier representation. This representation was rejected by the authorities as per order dt. 18.1.99 as per Annexure 'G' on due consideration of his personal difficulties.
30. In this matter also, none appeared for the petitioner on the date of hearing. Mr. R.N. Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has made the same submissions as advanced by him in the earlier O.A. i.e. O.A. 120/99. Those may not be repeated here.
31. After going through the materials on record with reference to the grounds taken in the O.A. I don't find any substance in this application. The impugned order of transfer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is nothing to show that it is issued by way of penalty or in colourable exercise of powers vitiated by any ill motive or arbitrariness. The petitioner was transferred from Chittaranjan to Calcutta Office on his own request in 1981. He has beeh working in Calcutta Office for more than 17 years at a stretch with some occasional desk transfers only. His wife, although alleged to be a heart patient is working in a Bank in Calcutta. His daughter is reading in a lower class. All these aspects have been considered by the respondent authorities and they have rightly rejected the petitioner's representations. I have already held while dealing with O.A. 121/99 that there is no justification of the plea that transfer from Chittaranjan to Calcutta is a one-way traffic. By an order of transfer, an employee may be put in personal hardship and inconvenience which he is to tackle personally. The administration cannot be compelled to cancel an order of transfer on personal ground of an employee unless it is shown that the impugned order is a mala fide one or has been issued in colourable exercise of power or is a punitive one.
32. So far as petitioner's case relating to private respondent No. 9 is concerned. I don't find any substance in the same. The contention of Mr. Das in this regard has already been noted in earlier paragraph while dealing with O.A. 123/99. There is nothing to show that the impugned order of transfer was not issued in the interest of public service. There being no merit in this application i.e. O.A. 120/99, it must fail.
33. No I take up the 3rd application i.e. O.A. 122/99. None appeared for the petitioner on the date of hearing. I have heard Mr. R. N. Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the averments made in the instant O.A. and the annexures to the same.
34. The grievance of the petitioner in this O.A. is same and similar to those of the petitioners in the above two O.As. This petitioner joined the service in C.L.W., Chittaranjan in 1983. He was transferred to Calcutta Office in 1986 at his own request (vide Annexure 'B' his representation dt 3.12.98). Since then, the petitioner had been working in Calcutta Office with intervening desk transfers and since 6.6.97, he has been working under the S.O./Store Finance, Calcutta. The same grievance is made in respect of private respondent No. 9 that she has not been touched for more than 20 years. It is the same allegation that S/Shri P. Banerjee, S.N. Chakraborty, Apurba Sana and Anip Kr. Biswas have been transferred to Calcutta Office from Chittaranjan at their own request and in order to accommodate them, the petitioner along with two other applicants have been transferred to Chittaranjan. It is stated that as he had some personal difficulties and hardship in the matter of complying with the impugned order of transfer as per Annexure 'A' dt. 21.11.98, he made a representation to the respondent No. 3A on 3.12.98 as per Annexure 'B'. The grievance is the same as that of the other two applicants. It was stated that he had built a house for his own in Greater Calcutta and had permanently settled down there and as such it was next to impossible for him to go back to Chittaranjan. It is also stressed there that the staff transferred to Calcutta Office are never transferred back to Chittaranjan. He has also taken the same ground that in order to avoid transfer to Chittaranjan, he did not appear at any promotional examination. This was considered by the respondent No. 3A and the same was rejected as per order dt. 16.12.98 (Annexure-C). He was informed that he was occupying a sensitive post since his transfer in Calcutta in 1986 and that the order of transfer was a routine one. It is also noted there that the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant on 1.4.87 while he was working in Calcutta Office. Thereafter, the petitioner, the petitioner has filed another representation to the same authority dt. 23.12.98 as per Annexure 'D' repeating his personal and financial hardship caused by the order of transfer. It was stated there for the first time that he was a physically handicapped person having one eye requiring medical check up and nursing, which will not be possible at Chittaranjan. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No. 3A as per order dt. 30.12.98 (Annexure-E) on due consideration. The petitioner filed another representation or appeal to the respondent No. 3, the General Manager, C.L.W. on the same ground for cancellation of the transfer order. It was also considered in details by the competent authority and rejected.
35. The submissions of Mr. R.N. Das on the instant application are the same as advanced by him in the earlier two OAs. It has been contended that the impugned order of transfer has been issued in the interest of public service and it is a routine transfer.
36. From the materials on record, I don't find anything to show or suggest that the impugned order of transfer relating to the petitioner is legally bad in any way or that it is a mala fide one or a punitive one or has been issued in colourable exercise of power.
37. Regarding his case in respect of private respondent No. 9, who has been impleaded on the other two applications as noted above, I don't find any substance in such allegation. Mr. Das has made same submission in respect of respondent No. 9 as made in the earlier two OAs. There is no substance in the instant application.
38. Accordingly I hold that the orders of transfer challenged by the respective applicants in the aforesaid three O.As. do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and that they do not appear to be mala fide or penal ones or being issued in colourable exercise of power by making a hostile discrimination against any of the petitioners.
39. All the applications are frivolous. The respective applicants after having worked in Calcutta for more than 17 years so far as first two applicants are concerned and more than 12 years so far as the applicant in O.A. No. 122/99 is concerned, have filed these applications to challenge a lawful order of transfer which has been issued in the interest of public service. The impugned order of transfer was passed on 21.11.98. Mr. Das has reported that none of the applicants has joined their new post at Chittaranjan since then without any lawful excuse after their representations were rejected. That aspect of the matter is to be dealt with by the administration according to extant rules.
40. The above three applications being O.A. Nos. 121/99, 120/99 and 122/99 fail and are dismissed. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respective petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only each to the respondent authorities within a fortnight, failing which the respondent authorities will be at liberty to realise the same according to law.
41. M.A. No. 162 of 1999 filed in O.A. 121 of 1999 also stands disposed of.
42. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of the relevant except of this order up to paragraph 15 to the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta for placing the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta. He is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar, Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi for placing the same before the Hon'ble Chairman forthwith.