Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Dr Abhijit Rabha vs M/O Environment And Forests on 18 November, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH ©
Original Application No.040/00087/2020 with
Misc Application No.040/00038/2020
THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dr, Abhijit Rabha
S/o Late Dharani Kanta Rabha
Presenily residing at Diphu
~-- Karbl Angiong-782 460, Assam.
-Versus-
1. The Union of india,
Through the Secretary fo the
Government of India, Ministry of
Environment, Forests & Climate
Change, Indira Paryayan Bhavan,
Jorbag Road, New Delhi -1 70003.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Environment, Forests &
Climate Change, Indira Paryavan.
Bhavan, Jorbag Road, New Delhi -
110003.
3, The Joint Cadre Authority Assam »
Meghalaya Joint Cadre indian Forest
Service, represented by the Chief
Secretary to the Govemment of
Assam, Dispur - 781006.
THE HON'BLE MR. A. MUKHOPADHAYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
os Applicant
BONS
on
OA.040/00087/2020 with
2
The Additional Chief
@ Government
wironment & Forest
sour? 81006,
SS. Rao, IFS
nal
nglong, Diphu.
Applicant:
Respondents:
: xte of Assam. represented by
Secretary, Dispur - 7810006.
Principal
or of Forests
Department {CHD} Forests,
partment, Dispur- 781006.
a ...Respondents/ Original Applicant.
Secretary fo
af ASSAM,
Depariment,
Chief
and Council
Si KN Choudhury, Sr Adv
SAN J Khotaniar
SH PN Goswami
oan P Mahanta
Sik B Gohain
Sri VK Bhatra, Sr CGSC for R
Nos.} & 2
OA4.040/00087/2020 with
_ : | | SK Das, S.Govt Advocate,
~ Assam for R Nos, 4,5 &6
Sn K Das for 8 No.8
Date of hearing: 20.10.2020 Date of Order. 78 .11.2020
ORDER
MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J):
The hearing of the matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
ney
2. Being aggrieved with the jransfer order dated 03.03.2020 from the post of Principal Chief Conservator af Forest (PCCF in shar}, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC in short}, Diphu to the past of Officer on Soecial Duty {OSD in shori} in the Environmen? and Farest Depariment, Govi. of Assam, Dispur, the applicant approached this Tibbunal under Section 19 of ihe Administrative THbunals Act, 1985 with the following ralief{s}:~ "8.1 That fhe Hon'ble Tnbunal moy be pleased fo set aside/quash fhe impugned transfer order dated 03.03.2020. [Annexure-Al] whereby [he OA,040/0008 7/2020 with 4 applicant has been sought to be transferred from he cadre post of Special Principal Chief 'Conservator of Forests, (FS. Karbi Angiong "Autonomous ee Diohu to the post of Officer on Special Duty in fhe Environment and Forest . Deportment, ovement of Assam, Disour, which 8.0n @x-cadre post and cae a:
it 8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set oside and quash the impugned release order 'dated 04.03.2020 [Annexure-A2) issued by the Principal Secretary, KAAC ae the applicant om the cadre post of Specia i Princioal Chief Lonservaicr of Forests, IFS Karbi Angiong Autonomous Council, Blohu and | 8 3. That fhe Hon'ble Tribunal: may: he pleased ite) sel asidie/auash the | impugned Govi notification dated 02.03 2020, whereby the respondent No.& as been posted Additional Principal: Chief Conservator of Forest and Council Head of Cepariment Forest in Karbi Anghona.
84. Costs of the application.
ea Any ofher rellef{s) fo which the applicant is entit! ed fo as the Hon'ble Thbunc may deem {i »C.GS.C, for the Union of India. Follawing der was passed on 06,03. 2020- OA.040/00087 {2020 with DARI I020 RRR UERUAURURARURNUURARRNTURNE yy 5 * Jleamed senior counsel prayed for inferim orotection. If was submitied that the impugned transfer order of the applicant is not a routine transfer but in fact the same fs In fleu of punishment which is not permissible uncer law. According te the learned senior counsel, several departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the State Government/Central Government. Some are already closed. Further, the Inspector of Police, Director of Vigilance and Ardi Corruption, Assarn filed an FIR against the "applicant which was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court vide Cr Pet.195/2020 and vide order dated 28.02.2020, fhe Hon'ble High Court directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant fil the next date ie. 16.03.2020. Learned senior counsel submits that applicant affer being prevented the applicant is sought fo be transferred to an ex- cadre post de-horse the relevant rules that too in a much lower post. Further, a cadre officer from his cadre post cannot be transferred to an ex- cadre post without his consent, According fo the {earned senior counsel, if the interim orcer is not granted, fhe applicant wil be suffering irreparable loss and injury. .
Having heard the learned senior counsel and on perusal of the Regulation, 1966 ond fhe IFS {Cadre} Rules, 1964. we find a prima facie case in favour of the apolicant. Balance of convenience fies In favour of fhe applicant and if no inierim order Is granted. applicant may suffer irreparable loss. and injury. | Accordingly, impugned transfer order dated 03.03.2020. {Annexure-Al], release order dated 04.03.2020 including the Govt. notification ONOFREST/2011/PH/214 dated 02.03.2020 as mentioned In the order dated 04.03.2020 are OA,040/00087 (2020 with --
MA.040/00038 /2020 6 stayed. il fhe next date. Uberly is however anted fo the respondents fo put up their
-- odjections, fF any for modification, alteration or vacation of this interim order."
The Govt. of Assam Le. the respondent nos. 4, 5 ve filed their written statement on 09.06.2020.
7? & private respondent noo. No rejoinder has d by the applicant, 06.03.2020, Sdid MA was taken up by the court 2020 and 24.06.2020. After taking info account issions made by leamed counsel for the pariles the court was of the considered VIEW OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038 /2020 ?
for final disposal of the entire matter at the earliest, Accordingly, vide order dated 24.06.2020, matter was fixed for nebling on 14.07.2020. twas also directed that - no further adjoumment shall be granted in the matter. As no Division Bench was available matter could not be heard. A. special Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mrs Manjula Das, Judicial Member and Hon'ble Sf A. Mukhopadhays, Administrative Member was constituted to hear this matter along with some other urgent matters. The matter came up peters this 'court on 19.10.2020, however, on the request for ihe counsel forthe applicant's side as well as Sn V K Bhatra, Sr. C.G.8.C. for the respondent nos.} & 2 the matter was adjourned, The matter was taken up on 20.10.2020, On that day, Sri V & Bhatra, leamed Sr CGSC appearing for the respondent nos. J | & 2. submitted a copy of letter dated 20.10.2020 which inferalla stated that service Records of forest officers.in the States are maintained by the respective Slate Governmenis and OA.040/00087 {2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 atiers pertaining to fransfer/posting fall within the of the State Government and the Ministry of - iment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of ia has no role in this. State Govt. was accordingly The bref facts as narrated by Ihe applicants f , # that the applicant is an IFS officer encadred in A sam Meghalaya Joint Cadre. He was promoted ed in KAAC vide order dated 24022014 of OSD in the Environment and Forest Departmen, Guwahati vide order dated 03.03.2020 and was released vide order dated 04.03.2020. Hence this OA.
7. We have heard Sri K N Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Sri P Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Kankan Das, learned Sr. Govt, counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6; and Sri H K Das, learned counsel for the private respondent no.8. None Con fra;
appeared on behalf of the respondent nowy (KAAC},
8. The arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant are summarized as under:-
8{i). The first and foremost argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that instant transfer order is violative of Rule 8(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966. According to the learned senior counsel, the post of PECF, Karbi Anglong being held by the applicant is a cadre post and he has been transferred to the post of OSD in the Environment and OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 Sarr epee et Se Oe Pe + dls Ta 10 Forest Department, Dispur Guwahati is an ex-cadre post. As per Rule 8(3) of the said Rules, 1966 before transfer from cadre post to any ex-cadre post or vice versa prior approval of the Central Governmeni is required.
8(ii). The second argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant was ihat the post of OSD in the Environment and Forest Department 'in which the applicant is sought to be transferred and F posted is not in the rank of PCCF. Thus, the applicant is sought to be demoted from the posi of Special PCCF, KAAC to the post of OSD. The incumbent, who was previously holding the post of OSD in the Environment and Forest Department, Dispur is in the cadre of DFO . which is a much lower cadre to that of PCCF. In . support of this argument learned Senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of UO! & Ors vs Janardhan Debanath & Another, (2004(4) SCC
245. OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 1] 8{iii}. The third argument advanced by the learned senior counsel is that while the applicant was sought to be transferred and posted from cadre post to ex-cadre post, his consent was not obtained, as such, the impugned transfer order is bad in law. In support of his argumeni, learned Senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kavi Raj vs State of J & K, 2013 (3) SCC 526 para 24.
8{iv). The fourth argument advanced was that transfer and posting of respondent no.8 is against the resolution no.07 dated 28.07.2019 taken by the | Executive Commitiee meeting of KAAC. In support of the said argument learned senior counsel drew our aifention to Annexure-C to the objection filed by the applicant against the MA.040/00038/2020. Relevant portion of the resolution is extracted below:-
if Holding of Additional charge by Officers elsewhere in the State or State head quarter shall be discontinued forthwith with intimation to the lending agency ie Govt. of Assam."
OQA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 12 According to the learned senior counsel, respondent no.8 has been holding the charge of Additional PCCEF (Legal) under the Government of Assam and as such as per the said resolution, he cannot be appoinied additionally as Additional PCCF, KAAC.
8(v). The fifth argument of the learned senior counsel! was applicant is retiring in June 2021 and his transfer at the verge of retirement is bad in law as the policy of the Govi. do not encourage the departments to transfer an employee at the verge of retirement and
- posting fo station of choice shall be given due weightage to persons due for superannuation within two years.
8{vi). Apart from the above, learned senior counsel "submitted that numerous attempts were made by the 'respondents to deny lawful promotion io the applicant to the post of PCCF & HoFF, initially on the pretext of 'Illegal departmenial proceeding and thereafter on the ground of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption FIR on the OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 13 same set of facts. Learned senior counsel accordingly submitied that malafide is writ large in the instant case and on that count alone OA should be allowed.
8(viil). According to the learned senior counsel, the impugned transfer order is not made in public interest, rather the same has been made in a most malatide manner. Mere using the word "public interest" in fhe order of transfer shall establish the same to be made in a] public interest.
9, Countering ihe arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the applicant, Sri Kankan Das, learned senior Govt. counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 6 submitted that post of Special PCCF, KAAC is not included in the existing cadre Schedule issued by the Govt. of Assam vide notification No, FRE/104/99/186 dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure R1 of the written statement of R 4-6). According to the learned senior Govt. counsel, said was created in the rank of PCCF, as per provision of Rule 4{2) of the IFS, OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 14 Cadre Rules 1966 vide communication No.FRE.40/2010/P11/21 dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure R2).
Applicant was not holding a cadre post in the rank of PCCF, KAAC as the post of Special PCCF, KAAC held by the applicant is not included in the cadre schedule issued by the Govt of Assam vide notification dated 31.08.2010. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the argument of the applicant that he was holding the cadre post of PCCE and has been transferred to an ©x-cadre post is absolutely false and baseless, ST Pc a ee ee
10. According to the learned counsel, ithe applicant has completed more than 11 years of service in the KAAC in very sensitive Posts like Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator of Forests, Addi.PCCF and PGCE and even after Promotion he remained posted in KAAC without facing any transfer for last more than 11 years. Learned Sr Govi, counsel further contended that owing to administrative exigency involved in the OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 NS matter, the resoondent ne.é issued a notification dated 02.03.2020 by which private respondent no.8 was allowed fo hold the additional charge of Additional PCCF, KAAC, Diphu in addition to his own duties with effect from faking over of charge and unill further orders. Further, the respondent no.é vide order dated 03.03.2020 {Annexure A/l of the OA} transferred the appicant as OSD in the Environment and Forest Department, Disour with immeciote effect and untl further orders in the interest of public service and taking into. consideration the administrative exigency. Learned counsel submitted that the KAAC authorities vide order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure R4) accepted the services of the respondent no.8 as Addl. PCCE, Diphu by allowing him jo take over the charge from 51 Jogonath Rongpi. AFS, I/c Special Chief Conservator of Forests. By the said ordér applicant was released from the disposal of KAAC with immeciate effect.
OA.040/00087/2020 with MA, 16
11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 to 6 also submitted that at the time of passing of the interim order dated 06.03.2020 the applicant was not in the capacity of the post of Special PCCF, KAAC as he was relieved on 21.02.2020 after faking over the charge by Sri Jogonaih Rongpi.
12, Leamed counsel submitied that the post of OSD in the Environment & Forest Department, Dispur wherein applicant is sought to be transferred and posted is not a lower posi. In support of the argument learned counsel submitied that there are instances wherein officer in the rank of PCCF had been posted as OsD in the said Department. In a similarly situated case Govt of Assam vide notification dated 27.03.2015 transferred and posted Sri V K Vishnoi, IFS, PCCF & HoFF as OSD in the said Department in his existing pay scale with immediate effect.
OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 17
13. According to the learned counsel, transfer and posting is solely the subject maiter of administrative discretionary Authority of respective Department and that any administrative order like an order of iransfer in the instant case, can be questioned only on ihe ground of violation of any statutory rule or on any malafide exercise of power. Hence, leqfied counsel submitted that the transfer order dated 03.03.2020 having been passed without any statujory violation and malafide must pass the test of judicial scrutiny and the same is required to be upheld by vacating the interim order dated 06.03.2020.
14. Sri H K Das, learned counsel for the private respondent no.8 vociferously argued contesting the arguments advanced by the applicant. Firstly, learned counsel submitied that applicant joined at KAAC on 18.08.2009 on an ex-cadre posi of Conservator of Forest created for KAAC. He got promoted to the rank of Chief Conservator of Forest in 2011 again against ex-
OA.040/00087/2020 with . - pee eee - - se See cea soe . hy Tet ra 18 cadre posi and remained posted in KAAC. Thereafter, he was again promoted to the rank of Addl. PCCF vide notification dated 13.03.2013 against an ex-cadre post at KAAC. Finally he was promoted to the rank of PCCF vide notification dated 4.02.2016 again against an ex- cadre post. Therefore, the applicant got all his promotions against ex-cadre posits created by the Government of Assam and for all practical purpose he has completed more than 10 years service in the KAAC without facing any transfer. Learned counsel further submitted that taking into account the prolonged RF absence of the applicant and in the interest of public service the KAAC authorities decided to entrust Sri Jogonath Rongpi, AFS, DFO, Karbi Anglong East Division, Diphu to temporarily hold the charge of Special PCCF, KAAC in addition fo his normal duties and until further orders Vide order dated 21.02.2020. By the said order, Sri Rongpi was directed to take over the charge of Special PCCF, KAAC unilaterally and OA.040/00087/2020 with 19 immediately. Learned counsel submitted that immediately on the next date i.e., 22.02.2020, Sri Rongpi took over the charge of Special PCCF, KAAC. According to the learned counsel, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the post of Special PCCF, KAAC which was allowed to be managed by Sri Rongpi, the CEO, KAAC issued a communication dated 27.02.2020 to the Minister, Environment & Forest Department, Govt of Assam to transfer the respondent no.8 and place his services under the disposal of KAAC for posting of Sri S S Rao, IFS {respondent no.8} as in charge of Forest Department, KAAC with immediate effect. Owing fo the administrative exigency involved in the matter, the respondent no.é_ issued communication dated 02.03.2020 by which private respondent no.8 was allowed to hoid the additional charge of Addl. PCCF, KAAC, Diphu in addition to his own duties from taking over the charge and uniil further orders.
OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 ee ee :
7 wre eats _ 20
15. Sri H K Das, learned counsel arguing on similar lines io that of learned counsel for the Siate of Assam, submitted that applicant was promoted to the post of PCCF, KAAC against an ex-cadre post, therefore, the ground taken by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that applicant was transferred from cadre post to ex-cadre post is not maintainable. Learned counse! further argued that ithe post of OSD in the Environment and Forest Department where applicant is transferred is not a lower post, rather on joining of the -
applicant, his pay and all ofher service conditions in the rank of PCCF will be projected.
16. Learned counsel further argued that Rule 8(3) of the IFS Cadre Rules, 1966 clearly reveals that prior approval of the Central Government is required only in appointment from cadre officer to ex-cadre post. It does noi deal with the situation pertaining to transfer and posting of officers from ex-cadre post to ex-cadre post. It is stated that no prior approval of the Central OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 VETTE EEN oF Aa sah eee :
pine Ge aed b:
Sitesi ih pig epiiies, ' 21 Government is required for transfer of an IFS officer either from a cadre post to ex-cadre post or vice versa.
Learned counsel therefore submitted that reliance | placed by the learned senior counsel for the applicant for interference in the transfer order is totally misplaced in the present facts and circumstances of the presenti case. According to the learned counsel, a conjoint reading of 2° proviso of Rule 4(2), Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1966 would make it clear.ihat even a cadre officer can be appointed against an ex-cadre post. If aopointment of a cadre officer can be made in an ex-cadre posi subsiantively, in such an eventuality transfer of an IFS officer from cadre post fo ex-cadre post and vice-versa is axiomatic.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that transfer order can be challenged only . on the ground of malafide and statutory violations. ' According to the learned counsel, in the instant case, OA.040/00087/2020 with 22 there is no violation of statutory provisions in transferring the applicant and there is no proven malafide.
18, Apropos the argument advancedon behalf of the applicant that applicant has been transferred at the verge of retirement, learned counsel for the private respondent no.8 submitted that applicant's home town is Guwahati and his transfer to Guwahatt is going to help him to settle down in Guwahati in his retirement | ~"s
- life.
79, We have heard rival submissions, perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the judgments relied upon. The issue to the decided js whether transfer of the applicant from Special PCCF, KAAC to OSD to Environment and Fores} Depariment, Dispur is permissible or not 2
20. The main ground taken in the pleadings as well as in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant was that vide order dated 03.03.2020 the OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 VAD The Se orp Neat seec face y ys | hi ake cy r 23 applicant has been transferred from a cadre posi to an ex-cadre post without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government as required under Rule 8(3) of ihe IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966. For better elucidation Rule 8(3) of the said Rules, 1966 Is exiracted below:-
"8(3} The State Government may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, appoint a cadre officer to hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the number specified for the concerned State in item 5 of the Schedule fo the Indian Forest Service {Fixation of Cadre Strength} Regulations, 1966 and for so long as the approval of the Central Government remains in force, the said ex-cadre post shall be deemed to be an addition to the number specified in item 5 of the said Schedule."
D ZI jounwd | S) S / 4) NS &, VQ A Said argument has been rebutted by learned counsel for the State of Assam as well as for the private respondent no.8 in their arguments as well as their written statements. Both the learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the notification dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure-A3 of the OA) vide which applicant was promoted to the rank of PCCF in HAG + OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 to 1. see crete > wel 24 'scale: Rs.75,500/--80,000/- Grade Pay Nil and posted as PCCF, Karbi Along, Diphu against the existing ex-cadre post as created vide letter dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure 'R/2 to the written statement of the State of Assam) w.e.f. the date of taking over the charge and uniil further orders. Applicant neither filed rejoinder rebutting ihe above stand of the respondents by substantiating with any paper or document, nor the learned senior counsel for the applicant disputed the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the notification dated 24.02.2016 eg en eer {Annexure A3 of the OA) makes it clear that applicant was promoted in the post of PCCF, KAAC against the existing vacant ex-cadre post. Thus the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the applicant fails. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that before transferring him as OSD his consent was not taken has no relevance in this case in view of the above situation.
OA,040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 «al 25 Reliances placed by the learned senior counsel for the applicant in Janardhan Debanath & Kavi Raj (supra) are not applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances of those two cited cases are totally different from the present case. In Kavi Raj (surpra) case, the issue was posting on deputation outside parent department, whereas in the present case applicant has been iransferred and posted from an ex-
cadre post to an ex-cadre post. On-the 'other hand, In Janardhan Debanath {supra}, the iwo employees of Postal Services Department were transferred from Agartala Division to Meghalaya Division and the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court Agariala Bench setting aside the transfers of the writ petitioners therein was sef aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by allowing the civil appeals filed by the department.
21. One of the grounds for challenging the transfer was that the posi of OSD is not in the rank of PCCF and applicant's transfer from PCCF, KAAC to OSD in the QA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 26 Environment and forest Depariment amounts to demotion of the applicant. Rebutting the said argument both the learned counsel for the State of Assam as well as for private respondent no.8 cited the example of Sri V K Bishnoi, IFS who while serving as PCCF & HoFF was transferred and posted as OSD in the Environment and Forest Department in his existing pay scale vide nofification dated 27.03.2015. The specific contention of the counsel for the respondents was that on joining as OSD applicant's pay and all other service conditions would be protected. In view of the above, said argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is not tenable.
22, Learned senior counsel for the applicant further argued that transfer of the private respondent no.8 to hold the additional charge of Additional PCCF, KAAC is violative of resolution no.07 of the Executive Committee of KAAC, as already quoted elsewhere above. Rebutting the said argument both the learned OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 27 counsel for the State of Assam as well as the private respondent no.8 drew the attention of this court to the order dated 04.03.2020 ([Annexure-A2 to the OA) vide which the KAAC authorities have already dccepied the services of the private respondent no8. as Additional PCCF and Council Head of Department (CHD) Forests, Karbi Anglong and the applicant had already been released with immeciate effect vide the said order. In para 3h} of the written statement fled by the private respondent nos, if had clearly been stated that in pursuance of the notification dated 02.03.2020, the KAAC authorities issued the order dated 04.03.2020 aecepling the services of the respondent no.8 as Additional PCCF, KAAC allowing him to take over the charge from Sri Jogonath Rongpi, AFS 1/C special PCCF, KAAC and by the said order applicant was released from the disposal of the KAAC with immediate affect. Applicant did nat fle ony rejoinder fo deny or dispute the said contention of the respondent. On ©A.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 28 perusal of the order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure A2 of the. OA) by which KAAC avuthorilles accepted the services of the private respondent no.8 as Additional POCE, KAAC there is no scope fo further delve into the said contention of the applicant. Therefore, this contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for There fs oan objective based on ke necessary arrangement for his superannvated there is nothing apparent in the OA or in the OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 . a ee scorer tt ty 7 rei kad aT raat, 29 is an intention of the applicant to settle down at KAAC, Diphu and not in Guwahati. It is not disputed by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the home town of the applicant is Guwahati. Thus, it is candid clear that the Government has abided by the policy and no violation exists in the impugned transfer.
24, The contention of the applicant as regards allegation of malafide on the part of respondenis is not convincing. There is no such proof in the said submission and in the OA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EP. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 held as under:
"The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility."
QA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 30 r
25. In the case of Union of India & Others vs. '$.LAbbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"... Who should be transferred where, is a meatier for the appropriate authority to decide and that, unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it."
In the present case, the grounds taken by the applicant namely allegation of malafide-and Violation of statutory guidelines/provisions do not exist. The applicant has been continuing in KAAC for the last more than 10 years without facing any transfer. Thus there is no reason to further agifate to continue at KAAC. As such, the prayer for setting aside the transfer order dated 03.03.2020 is not justified.
26. The other submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant apropos denial of Promotion to the post of PCCF & HoFF has no relevance in the presence case relating fo transfer.
OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 31
27. After taking into the entire conspectus of the case, and going through the decisions relied upon, we hold that applicant's transfer from Special PCCF, KAAC to the post of OSD in the Environment and Forests Department, Dispur is permissible in law and requires no interference from this Tribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss ihe present OA. Interim order dated 06.03.2020 as extended from time to time is vacated. Resultanily, es ; MA.040/00038/2020 stands disposed of.
'hire Shia be no order.as to cosis.
are Sd/-
Manjula Das Hon'ble Member (J) } Sdi-
A. MUKHOPADHAYA MEMBER (A) OA.040/00087/2020 with MA.040/00038/2020 ee eee ns a Ta US Te eT Sher Soe LEED OBE MR BaD ene eee pol, arr tai at eo a = .