Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
D P Meena vs M/O Defence on 6 May, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-64/2016
Reserved on : 29.04.2016.
Pronounced on : 06.05.2016.
Hon'ble Sh. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. D.P. Meena, aged 51 years
FED,
S/o Sh. Bodan Lal Meena,
R/o A-104, Madipur Colony,
Delhi-110063. ..... Applicant
(through Sh. B.L. Wanchoo, Advocate)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General,
Ordnance Services,
Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Chief Records Officer
AOC
Secundrabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
4. Commandant,
Ordnance Depot,
Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110063. ..... Respondents
(through Ms. Rinchen O. Bhutia, Advocate)
ORDER
The applicant joined service with the respondents as a Fireman on 29.05.1989. Gradually, he got promoted as Fire Engine Driver (FED), first as Group-A and subsequently as Group-B. On 29.07.2014 the applicant along with several others FEDs of Ordnance Depot Shakur Basti was transferred to 3 Inf DOU.
2 OA-64/2016 He did not join his posting and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Subsequently, on 14.12.2015 the disciplinary proceedings against him were finalized on humanitarian grounds and he was directed to comply with the transfer order and report to his new place of posting in 3 Inf DOU. The applicant has, however, filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Direct the Respondents to produce the relevant records/files pertaining to the transfer order of the applicant.
(b) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. 4508/R/T-
Pos/FS/Est(NI) dated 14.12.2015.
(c) To pass any other order/directions, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. The contention of the applicant is that this transfer order was discriminatory as he has been singled out for transfer even when 4 FEDs senior to him have been retained in Ordnance Depot, Shakur Basti, New Delhi. He has submitted that his position in the seniority list was 268 whereas there were many others, who were senior to him in length of service and had station seniority of Delhi in comparison to him. From an RTI application, he has come to know that his name had been recommended by Ordnance Depot, Shakur Basti, Delhi for posting to 3 Inf DOU. This was done without taking his consent. Further, he has stated that his wife was undergoing treatment for depression and that his young daughter had suddenly expired on 10.06.2014. The respondents have even issued a charge sheet against him under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 but had dropped the same. The transfer order according to him was punitive and not sustainable under law.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that this case relates to turnover posting of FEDs. Policy regarding volunteers as well as selection for turnover posting had been strictly adhered to. As per this policy if no volunteers 3 OA-64/2016 were available for turnover posting, longest stayee in the station is selected for posting out provided he has not attained the age of 57 years. As per this policy 12 FEDs were transferred including the applicant. Further, the respondents have stated that applicant was now the senior-most FED in Delhi station and it was for this reason, he was transferred to 3 Inf DOU. After issuance of his transfer order on 26.06.2014 the applicant had suddenly absented himself without leave w.e.f. 12.07.2014 to 31.03.2015. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued against him for this misconduct. He, however, reported back on duty on 01.04.2015 and was allowed to rejoin duty on the same day as requested by him in his application dated 01.04.2015. Taking into consideration his domestic circumstances, the charges levelled against him were dropped on humanitarian grounds. Since the applicant stood transferred to 3 Inf DOU and his reliever Sh. Udham Singh had already joined Shakur Basti, the applicant was directed to report to 3 Inf DOU. He, however, failed to obey these orders and had rushed to this Tribunal.
4. I have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that transfer is an incidence of service and no government servant has a right to stay on a particular post or station. They have further opined that transferring an employee lies exclusively within the domain of the executive and transfer orders should not be interfered with by Courts/Tribunals until and unless they are found to be violative of any statutory rule or issued by an incompetent authority or issued as a result of mala fide. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009(15) SCC 1351 wherein the following has been observed:-
"A Government servant has no vested 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 liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident 4 OA-64/2016 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."
4.1 In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1991 Supp(2)SCC 659 in which the following has been observed:-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. 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 Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected 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 over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
4.2 Further, in the case of UOI vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 367 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that executive instructions issued by the Government are in the nature of guidelines and do not have the force of statute or law. Hence, for alleged violation of such guidelines, transfer orders should not be interfered with by the Courts/Tribunals. Also in the case of S.C. Saxena Vs. UOI & Ors., 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if a government servant has any grievance against the transfer order, he should first report for duty at his new place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances.
5. In the instant case, I find that the applicant has not alleged that the transfer order has been issued in violation of any law or statute. Nor is it his case that it has been issued by an incompetent authority or is a result of mala fide action. He has merely alleged violation of guidelines claiming that there were 5 OA-64/2016 some others who were senior to him but have been retained in Delhi. The respondents have disputed this contention. Be that as it may, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Abbas (supra) referred to above, no interference from this Tribunal is warranted. I also notice that the applicant has not reported for duty on the post to which he was transferred but has rushed to this Tribunal. His conduct is thus violative of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena (supra).
6. I, therefore, find no merit in this O.A. and dismiss the same. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) Member(A) /Vinita/