Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Udai Vir Singh Rathi vs Secretary on 11 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.2785/2010
New Delhi, this the 11th day of March, 2011
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Shri Udai Vir Singh Rathi,
S/o Late Shri Kaley Singh,
R/o B-5/112, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi.
Applicant
(By Advocate : Arun Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Union of India,
Through the Additional Secretary (UT),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
North Block,
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Police,
Through the Commissioner of police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, ITO,
New Delhi.
. Respondents
( By Advocate : R.N. Singh for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Sumedha Sharma for Respondent No.2)
: O R D E R :
Shri Uday Vir Singh Rathi, the Applicant herein, joined Delhi Police as Sub Inspector on 29.06.1978, got his out of turn promotion as Inspector in May, 1986, and was promoted as ACP. He was inducted to the entry grade of NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police Service (DANIPS) vide Notification dated 20.05.2005. The Chief Secretary Andaman & Nicobar Island Administration sought 6 Dy SP/ACP vide his letter dated 22.06.2010. Pursuant to the above request letter, the Applicant was transferred vide order dated 5.7.2010. In the meantime, challenging his transfer he submitted a representation dated 29.07.2010 and moved an OA No.2451/2010 which was disposed of on 30.07.2010 by the Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-A1), his representation was rejected and in the order of the same date (Page-20) his transfer to Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration was reiterated. It is the case of the Applicant that he has many laurels to his credit like Best Police Officer, and Presidents Police Medal for gallantry and as he has been assigned sensitive tasks in Delhi Police, he should have been retained at Delhi.
2. He has approached this Tribunal in the second round of litigation impugning the order of transfer dated 18.08.2010, and is seeking the following relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 :-
I) The impugned order of transfer dated 18.8.2010 with respect to the applicant may kindly be quashed and set-aside as the applicant is not an officer with the longest tenure at Delhi and as in view of the settled legal proposition that officers having longer tenure at a station are required to be transferred first.
Cost of petition is also awarded to the applicant.
Any other relief which this Honble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.
3. As stated above, earlier he visited the Tribunal in OA No.2451/2010 which was disposed of on 30.7.2010 by directing the Respondents to decide the representation of the Applicant filed before the Respondents dated 29.7.2010 against his transfer order to Andaman & Nicobar Administration and it was also directed to treat the OA as his supplementary representation for considering and passing appropriate orders. However, the Applicant was granted liberty to agitate the matter if he feels aggrieved by the reasoned order to be passed by the Respondents and seven days protection was granted after passing of the said order. The Respondents passed an order dated 18.08.2010. Therefore, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal again.
4. At the admission stage, after hearing the counsel for the Applicant on 25.08.2010, the Tribunal considered various aspects indicated in the present OA and stayed the transfer order through the following directions :-
5. In this background, learned counsel points out that the applicant, who has received many awards of gallantry, has been suffering from mental agony and he has to pursue these matters but dispite the directions of the Tribunal on the last occasion, the grounds taken in his representation did not receive proper attention. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of transfer be stayed qua the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has not yet been relieved and has not joined the Andaman and Nicobar Administration.
6. In view of the above submission, I find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case. The impugned order of transfer dated 18.08.2010 is hereby stayed in respect of the applicant for a period of 14 days.
7. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 08.09.2010.
Process DASTI. The said interim order of staying the transfer has been continuing since then.
5. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the Respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit on 07.10.2010 to which the Applicant filed his rejoinder on 02.12.2010. In the meantime, the Applicant filed an MA No.3151/2010 in the OA enclosing therein certain documents relating to the problems that the Applicant has been facing in his family front. The Respondents also submitted filed a reply affidavit to the said MA on 13.01.2011. The Applicant filed one more representation to the Dy. CP (Crime) on 18.01.2011 which was forwarded by the Spl. Commissioner of Police in his letter dated 24.01.2011 addressed to Joint Secretary, MHA requesting to consider Applicants case sympathetically and to allow him to continue in Delhi Police. These 2 letters were produced at the time of the final hearing by the Counsel for the Applicant. On a query on the said representation, the Counsel for the Respondents informed that the Respondents would shortly decide the same. He contends that the 2nd representation does not give any additional ground to retain him in Delhi Police. In view of the said statement made on behalf of the parties, as the case was fully ready and pleadings were complete, finally the case was heard on 23.02.2011.
6. Highlighting the excellent service rendered by the Applicant and his family compulsions, Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that there is violation of transfer policy; the Respondents have discriminated the Applicant while transferring him from Delhi to Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration ignoring his daughters and brothers problems which compels him to be at Delhi. Further, there is non-application of mind by the Respondents while rejecting his representations. These are his basic contentions. However, at great length Shri Bhardwaj elaborated each of the contentions. I would briefly bring out his contentions in the following paragraphs.
7. He contended that the Applicant would be retiring on 31.12.2013 and as on date there was hardly 2 years and 10 months of service. As such, he claims that as the Transfer Policy lays down the principle that those police officers who have more than 3 years service may be transferred but as the Applicant has less than 3 years of service, the transfer of the Applicant violates the said Principle/Policy. Further, he submits that the transfer has adversely affected his service conditions. He highlighted that considering the facts of the Applicants case stay of the transfer was allowed by the Tribunal at the admission stage.
8. It was further contended that there is invidious discrimination. Drawing my attention to the revised seniority list of officers appointed to DANIPS as on 1.01.2011, the Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is at Sl. No.123. 14 senior officers at Sl. No.82,83, 84, 86, 95, 102, 109, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120 and 122 have not been posted to Andamans and Nicobar Islands. It is the contention of the Applicants Counsel that those 14 officers having longer tenure and stay at Delhi and without having served in the outlying segments of Delhi at all have not been transferred but the Applicant has been singled out which is discriminatory. It is further contended that over last 60 years, there have been 30 times changes in the transfer policy mainly to accommodate their favourites. Thus, Respondents action should be termed as arbitrary.
9. It is urged that there are vacancies in Delhi in the rank of ACP and DCP. It is argued that the Respondents are giving additional change of DCP posts to junior ACPs. Many DCPs are holding substantive posts of ACPs and figure in the ACP list and it is contended that such situation cannot be the ground to send the Applicant to Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Drawing my attention to the rejoinder, Shri Bhardwaj would contend that there was no shortage of Police Officers in Andamans.
10. The learned Counsel for the Applicant dwelt on the emotional aspect of Applicants two family problems very extensively during the majority part of his arguments, to submit that the Respondents should have considered those problems before passing the impugned order. Those domestic issues are viz. (a) problems associated with his daughters matrimonial dispute and (b) the support needed by his brother in the appeal pending before the Honble Supreme Court on the conviction in a murder case.
11. Shri Bhardwaj submitted that on 27.02.2005 his elder daughter, namely, Bhawna Rathi got married with Mr. Gaurav Tomar and gave birth to a girl child, but due to unfortunate reasons, the marriage could not prolong well. In this regard, two litigations are pending in the Courts at Delhi under the Guardianship and Wards Act. His contention is that he is giving moral as well as logistic support to his daughter and grand daughter in the process of litigation. Moreover, she alongwith her daughter are living with him. It is contended that as his daughter is facing threat, trauma and depression due to criminal trespass, molestation and criminal intimidation because of her estranged married life, she needs Applicants care and protection. It was stated that as the daughters are the heart and soul of every father, non consideration of the Applicants family problem by the Respondents should be termed as arbitrary action and non application of mind. In this context, he placed his reliance on the orders of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Padma Kanta Saikia versus Union of India decided on 17.01.2008.
12. Another problem which the Applicant is facing is regarding life imprisonment of his elder brother in an infamous CP shoot out case where the SLP has been admitted in the Honble Supreme Court and the Applicant has to pursue the proceedings and to engage advocates personally. He is also looking after the family of his elder brother at Delhi.
13. Controverting the contentions raised by Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Central Government Counsel submitted that the competent authority has passed the transfer order in case of the Applicant who belongs to DANIPS and has to work not only in Delhi but also in other places as per the Rules of DANIPS. He submitted that as a matter of practice a list of officers who have not served outside Delhi is maintained by the Respondents in order of their seniority, grade wise and those who have more than 3 years of service left before retirement are posted in their turn to the outlying segments. The tenure for such officers being just two years, the Respondents ensure that after completion of the tenure in the outlying segments, such officers come back to Delhi before their retirement. Accordingly, the Applicant at the time of transfer had more than 3 years of service before his retirement and was transferred as per the extant rules. With regard to the contentions that the senior officers were not transferred but the Applicant was transferred in a discriminatory manner, he submitted that the officers mentioned at Sl. Nos. 114, 115, 116, 118, 119 and 122 had less than 3 years of service before their retirement and, as such, they were not eligible to be considered for transfer to the outlying segments. With regard of the officer at Sl. No.120, it is stated that he was on deputation in DANIPS from CRPF and the officer at Sl. No.109 had already served at Daman which is one of the outlying segments. Therefore, in additional affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is clarified that Shri Jasbir Singh and Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma were transferred to Andaman and Nicobar Island who have joined the post as reported by Director General of Police, Andaman & Nicobar vide his letter dated 23.10.2010. Thus, it is contended that Respondents have not discriminated the Applicant but are transferring all those who are eligible to outlying segments in their respective turns. He hastened to add that it is not necessary for the Respondents to transfer only in order of seniority but to find out who would be suitable for which post in the outlying segment. Referring to the contention that there are adequate Police Officers available in Andaman and Nicobar and there are vacancies at Delhi to retain the Applicant at Delhi, Shri R. N. Singh submitted that the transfer being an exigency of service it is the Respondents executive authority who had the proper right to decide which vacancies need to be filled up when and how. While exercising their executive power the Respondents have kept in mind the relevant rules and have not acted in any illegal or arbitrary manner i.e. prejudicial to the Applicant. Further, it is stated that the family problems highlighted by the Applicant, more specifically, with regard to his daughters marriage problems and brothers criminal case pending in the Honble Supreme Court, it is the Respondents considered opinion that the public interest should take precedence over the personal convenience/inconvenience. Therefore, the Respondents have properly acted to transfer the Applicant to the said place. He also clarified that on the date of Applicants transfer from Delhi to Andaman the Applicant had more than 3 years of service. It is the Applicant who through the litigation in the Tribunal challenged his transfer and has got the stay which should be vacated to allow the Applicant to join at Andaman & Nicobar Ireland. He further submitted that there is no violation of the policy in transferring the Applicant from Delhi to Andaman as his transfer was ordered which comes within the transfer policy of the Respondents. The transfer being an administrative exigency and as there was no violation of statutory policy/rules the role of the Tribunal is limited using the powers under judicial review. He submits that the Tribunal can only intervene if there are cases of malafide or violation of the Rules or violation of the officials service conditions or there has been discriminatory or arbitrary way of handling the Applicants case. In this context, he placed reliance on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Silpi Bose & Others versus State of Bihar AIR 1991 SCC 532, Union of India & Others versus S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, State of U.P. & Ors. versus Goverdhan Lal 2004 (3) SLJ 244 SC and the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sujata Kohli versus High Court of Delhi 148 (2008) DLT 17 (DB).
14. Referring to the family problems highlighted by the Counsel for the Applicant Shri R. N. Singh submits that the family problems and the public interest including administrative exigencies need to be balanced by the Respondents and, therefore, such family problems could not vitiate in any manner the powers exercised by the Respondents in transferring the Applicant from Delhi and whether the Applicant deals with sensitive matters in Delhi Police or not and whether his absence from Delhi Police for a period of two years in Andaman would in any manner affect the sensitive matters being dealt by him are the subjects which are well within the knowledge of the competent authority who decided his transfer. Therefore, such cannot be the ground to stall the transfer. Referring to the contention of non application of mind by the Counsel for the Applicant, Shri R. N. Singh highlights that the Respondents competent authority was conscious of the policy and the directions of the Tribunal in earlier OA and has also taken into account the grievances of the Applicant while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the said order cannot be termed as arbitrary or non application of mind by the competent authority. In view of the above, he pleads that the OA needs to be dismissed and stay order granted should be vacated in order to enable the Applicant to move from Delhi to Andaman.
15. Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Police endorses the contentions raised by Shri R. N. Singh and submits that the recommendation of Special Commissioner of Police to retain the Applicant at Delhi was basically to forward the representation of the Applicant but it is the competent authority i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs who take the decision in the matter of transfer. The recommendation of the authority of Delhi Police is not the competent to decide the matters of transfer of the Applicant. Therefore, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma submits that the importance assigned to by the Counsel for the Applicant to the said recommendation letter is rather improper which should not be an impediment on the way of the transfer of the Applicant to Andaman. She pleads that the present OA is not a fit case to be allowed and therefore, should be dismissed.
16. In the above backdrop of the facts and rival contentions, we may examine the legal aspects now. Transfer is an exigency and incidence of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Tribunal/Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. In several decisions of the Honble Apex Court viz. in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bangalore Verus Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, Bhadravati and Another [1999-6-SLR-77] B. Varadha Rao versus State of Karnataka (AIR 1986 SC 1955), Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 532), Union of India versus S. L. Abbas (AIR 1993 SC 2444) and Airport Authority of India Versus Rajeev Ratan Pandey [JT 2009 (10) SC 472], Rajendra Singh Versus State of UP and Others [2010-1-SLR-632] , the law laid has been that in the transfer matter of a Government employee, scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution is limited. The Tribunal and High Court should not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at the interim stage or final hearing, as the Courts do not substitute their own decision and as the Courts and Tribunals are not appellate authority in such matters of transfer. The judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Masood Ahmad Versus State of U.P. [2007 STPL(LE) 39042 SC] decided on 18.09.2007 guides us and the same reads as follows :-
4. The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Muzaffarnagar, had in his writ petition challenged his transfer by the State Government by order dated 21.6.2005 as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mawana, District Meerut. Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service vide B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas AIR 1993 SC 1605, Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444 etc. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148; (AIR 1939 SC 1236), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574; (AIR 2001 SC 3309), State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508; (AIR 2001 SC 1748). Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.
17. Besides the High Courts and we in the Tribunal are reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. We may refer to the ratio laid in the case of Shilpi Bose (supra) by the Honble Apex Court. Following para is relevant:
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is 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 mala fide. 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 overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
18. The Honble Apex Court in N.K. Singh Versus Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 1998], reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision.
19. In Airport Authority of India Versus. Rajeev Ratan Pandey [2009 (8) SCC 377] Honourable Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment observed the following on the allegation of malafide as a ground of transfer, which reads as follows :-
In the case of State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, while dealing with a matter of transfer, this Court observed that allegations of mala-fides must inspire confidence of the Court and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. That the burden of providing malafides is on a person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of mala-fides; it must be supported by requisite materials.In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer.
20. The Applicant has been functioning all along at Delhi and claims to continue at Delhi. The question arises, does he have vested right to continue at Delhi. In the context of the above issue, we draw our answer from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court which on the analysis and reliance of its earlier orders on different facets of transfer of Government employees in Rajendra Singhs case (supra) and those guide us in adjudicating the present OA.
6.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 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 appointment or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402].
21. The question, therefore, arises on what grounds the Tribunal can interfere in the transfer matters. On a very close and detailed study of the above referred judgments of Honble Apex Court, the following dicta emerge for our guidance in adjudicating the current OA. Transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be ordinarily interfered with by a Court of law, unless it is found that either (i) the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders; or (ii) the service rules prohibit such transfer; or (iii) the order suffers from mala fide of the Respondents; or (iv) the transfer suffers from arbitrary action of the executive.
22. In the background of the above settled legal position, the facts of the case reveal that the Applicant has admittedly been inducted to DANIPS with the transfer liability in Delhi and outlying segments. Further, undisputedly, the competent authority passed the transfer order and the Applicant did not allege any malafide against the Respondents. Hence, I would examine the remaining grounds in the legal setting spelt out in the foregoing paragraphs.
23. It is noted that the Applicants transfer was ordered on 5.7.2010 and the orders dated 18.8.2010 are pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.2451/2010. Hence, the date of Applicants transfer from the policy angle is 5.7.2010. As the Applicants retirement is due on 31.12.2013, on the date of transfer order (5.7.2010), there was more than 3 years before the Applicants retirement. From this angle, I do not find any violation of transfer policy or adverse effect on his service condition.
24. It was contended that seniors were not transferred but the Applicant was transferred which would be violative of the transfer police for DANIPS officers. Respondents adequately met this point in their counter affidavit. It is seen that out of 14 seniors identified by the Applicant, as many as 6 officers have less than 3 years of service before their retirement. Two seniors (Jasbir Singh and Surendra Kumar Sharma) already transferred to Andamans have joined there. It is evident that the Respondents have followed the transfer of eligible DANIPS officers to outlying segments. It is not necessary that Respondents should follow strict seniority in transferring the officers. Admittedly, Respondents are maintaining a list and shifting the officers to appropriate outlying segments. The Applicant being one of the eligible DANIPS officer has been transferred in July, 2010. Legally, nothing wrong has been committed by the Respondents. I do not find any discrimination in respect of the Applicants transfer. The Applicant could not demonstrate who are favourite officers retained by the Respondents. I find the allegation as extremely wild and has no legs to stand on.
25. Further, it is noticed from the pleadings that vacancies at the ACP level do exist at both Delhi and its Outlying segments. Executive is competent to decide which vacancy to be filled up and if so when and with which officer. It is trite law that the Tribunal should apply its judicial restraint in such matters which are in the exclusive domain of the executive.
26. Thus, from the above three angles, I find that there is no violation of Transfer Policy by the Respondents, nor there is any discrimination against the Applicant.
27. Further, a close and careful analysis of the order dated 18.8.2010, I find the Respondents have considered the grounds taken by the Applicant in his representation appropriately to arrive at the conclusion of rejecting the same. Respondents have to balance the public interest and administrative exigencies on the one hand and the personal and family problems the Applicant has posed due to his transfer on the other hand. They find that institutional need is of paramount importance over the family compulsions of the Applicant. I am in full agreement with the views of the Respondents. The order dated 18.8.2010 is a speaking and reasoned one and by no stretch of imagination the same can be termed as non-application of mind.
28. Applicant has taken the route of family problems to buttress his claim to stay at Delhi. This is unfortunate on the part of the Applicant to bring in his family problem like (i) daughters estranged married life along with associated litigations; and (ii) brothers criminal appeal in a murder case before the Honble Supreme Court. Though, learned counsel for the Applicant dwelt on these two family issues of the Applicant in the most part of his arguments and even voluminous documents on both issues have been annexed to the OA to impress that Applicants presence at Delhi is absolute necessity, I take note of para 10 of the impugned order and find that the Respondents have properly addressed those issues and rejected the Applicants request. It is noted that every Government employee will have some family/domestic/personal problems to cling on to one place but the administrative exigencies and public interest are more important for the executives to decide on the transfer. In the present case, in the order passed in OA No.2451/2010 Applicants family problems were posed before the Respondents to consider in this case. They did consider and rejected the Applicants such plea. I do not find any infirmity in the said decision conveyed to him vide order dated 18.08.2010.
29. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, guided by well settled legal position in the matters of transfer of Government employees; and my analysis of the rival contentions, I came to the considered conclusion that the Applicants transfer order dated 05.07.2010 and 18.8.2010 including the order dated 18.8.2010 on his representation are legally sustainable. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. The stay ordered earlier is vacated. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) Member (A) /pj/