Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sushil Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India on 12 February, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00861/2015
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 12th day of February, 2016
MR. G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sushil Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Shri Narendra Prasad Mishra
Aged about 51 years, Working as Principal, Jawahar Navodaya
Vidhyalaya Satna Village and Post Rahikwara, Tahsil Nagod,
District Satna MP -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Vikash Mahawar)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of School Education and literacy New Delhi 110001
2. Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti An Autonomous Organization under Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of India through its Assistant Commissioner, B-15, Institutional Area Sector 62 Noida UP 201307
3. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, An Autonomous Organization under Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of India through its Assistant Commissioner, B-15, Institutional Area Sector 62 Noida UP 201307
4. Joint Commissioner, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti,
Sector B-15, Industrial Area, Noida 201307
5. Dy. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti,
Regional Office Bhopal, A-135, Alkapuri,
Gate No.2 Bhopal MP 462001 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Praveen Namdeo proxy counsel for
Shri O.P. Namdeo)
(Date of reserving the order:10.02.2016)
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this Original Application challenging his transfer order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure A-1). It has also been prayed that order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure A-2) and the order dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure A-3) may also be quashed and set aside.
2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the applicant who was working on the post of Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya (for brevity JNV) Satna (M.P.) has been transferred in the same capacity to JNV Hamirpur, (H.P.) vide impugned order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure A-1). Since applicants wife is working in a school of Uttar Pradesh and posted at Banda (U.P) which is near to Satna, the applicant filed representation for cancellation of impugned transfer order dated 06.08.2015 or else its modification and posting the applicant at any place which is nearer to Banda (U.P.). The applicant had filed Original Application No.200/00751/2015 in this regard which was disposed of vide the order dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure A-12) with a direction to the competent authority, among the respondents, to take decision on his representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within 15 days. In compliance of these directions, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure A-2) by which his representation has been rejected. Thereafter the relieving order of the applicant has been issued vide office order dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure A-3).
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents have not decided his representation by a reasoned and speaking order. It will be evident from perusal of the order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure A-2) that applicants transfer has been justified only by stating that it is a natural incidence of service, and no explanation has been given in regard to administrative exigencies for transferring the applicant before expiry of his tenure. Though the respondents, in their reply, have mentioned that applicant has been transferred on account of an enquiry pending against him., this inquiry has already been closed as is evident from the document filed by the applicant at Annexure D-1 of Miscellaneous Application No.200/00159/2016. Thus, there is no ground to transfer the applicant to a far away place. Even if it is accepted that enquiry is still pending against the applicant then for proper conduct of enquiry applicants presence will be required. Therefore, he has to be posted at his existing place or at the most at some nearby place. As against this, applicant has been posted to a place which is almost 2000 km away from Satna, which will make conduct of enquiry difficult as applicant will have to travel every time for such a long distance. Thus, impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been found prima facie guilty of financial irregularities for which charge sheet has been served to him and departmental enquiry has been initiated under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Therefore the applicant has been transferred from JNV Satna on administrative grounds and his transfer is in accordance with provisions of transfer policy of JNV Samiti. The applicant has already been relieved vide order dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure A-3), and in his place Shri K.K.Jain senior most teacher has taken over the charge of Vidhyalaya. The applicant has done one tenure at JNV Banda where he was transferred on his own request on the ground of his wife working there under State Government of U.P.. Thereafter the applicant was transferred again on his own request from JNV, Banda to JNV Satna, which is near to Banda. However, from Satna his transfer has been ordered on administrative ground on the basis of a CBI enquiry and financial irregularities pointed out by the audit. It is not correct that the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, have been closed. The document filed by the applicant as Annexure D-1 to MA 200/00159/2016 is simply presenting officers brief and there is no order of closure of enquiry, which is still going on against the applicant. The applicant has all India Transfer Liability therefore there is no irregularity in the impugned transfer order. In regard to some of the transfers mentioned by the applicant in his rejoinder claiming discriminatory treatment to applicant, the respondents have explained the reasons for these transfers in their additional reply. It will be evident from the additional reply that none of these transfers were against the provisions of transfer policy of JNV Samiti.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and documents annexed therewith.
6. It is undisputed that applicant was posted at Banda before his on request posting to Satna and thus has enjoyed long tenure at Banda which is the place of his wifes posting and thereafter at nearby place i.e. Satna. From Satna he has been transferred to Hamirpur on administrative grounds. The applicant has All India Transfer Liability and he cannot enjoy the privilege of remaining at Banda or nearby place throughout his entire career on the ground of his wife being posted at some State Government school at Banda. The transfer order of the applicant has been issued by the competent authority and there are no allegations of any malafide in exercise of power by the competent authority in this matter.
7. In the matters of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 the Honble Supreme Court has specifically held that who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. In the matters of State of M.P. Vs. S.S.Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270 the Honble Supreme Court has held that the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background or foundation. In the matters of National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574, the Honble Supreme Court has held that unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. Thus, it is a settled law that transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by malafides of infraction of any professed norms of principle governing the transfer which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personal management of all government departments. This must be left in public interest to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated {See: N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98}. In the matters of State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Honble Supreme Court has held that [E]ven 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 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. Since there is no allegation of mala fide against any officer of the respondents nor any allegation with regard to competency of the officer who has passed the impugned orders of transfer or violation of any statutory provision in the impugned transfer, I do not find any justification for interfering with the impugned transfer order dated 06.08.2015 and impugned orders dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure A-2) and 21.09.2015 (Annexure A-3).
9. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P. Singhal) Administrative Member kc 6 OA No.200/00861/2015
Page 6 of 6