Karnataka High Court
N Ravindra S/O D Narayanappa vs The Deputy Director on 10 February, 2011
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal, K.Govindarajulu
IN 'I'II£«: HIGH" COURT' OF' }iARE'€A"I'AKA AT EEANGALQREZ
DATED '1'?-HS "fH}f£ 10?" DAY OF FIEBRUARY 29 I
PRESENT
TIWEIE HONBLE MR JUSTICI3 MI?' J
AND &
TI~iE HON'BLE MR JUs'I*I{:I.<":_V K <I't3~I?iI'¢I)I:xI?>,;%$II.iI_IIIIIIVV
WRIT PEJTITION NO.4O5i§8.,:€)i?201O'{SfCAT)f5
WRIT PEETITION «.N'O.4£)54{} .O'Ei2f)1*G_ (S-CAT]
WRIT PETITION 'NQAO544 or': 201"G.{S«CAT)
INWP
BETWEEN: 1. *
NRAVINDRA " " :;,_ »
S/O D.NARAYAI'€API3§:9I, I _ --
AGED A;30u"r 48' YEARS, '-
WORKING SCIENTIST;"B" ' -~ " I 4.
0/0 THE ELECTRONIC
AND DEVELO¥'MEN.T-- CENTRE,
DE)PAjf{{T1'vfEN'I' OF INFORMATION
" * TECE%i_NO;§,-OGFzf, STQC"-""'"
I)II>.Ir:;cToI2A'IiI«:;--._MINISTRY OF
'--vcoMIv1IIJNIC;+:TIQNs AND
INFOELNIATYQN 'IjI«:CI+IN0L0GY,
RIGII ROAD,' PLZENYA
_INDUSTRlAL'ES'I'ATE.
BANGALO13{E - 560058.
'. OF NO.10, 2ND FLOOR.
I :\_3;!'\. I\II3"I«vILIIA APARTEVIENTS,
-~ . 'I " ISos*I"n<)., OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
__ "*£3A£'?;}GAL-ORE W 580076. ...PETI'l'IONI:3R
% '] QUASH THE
{.2
{BY SR1 M SUBRAMANYA £3HA'E" FOR
M/S SUBBARAO AND CO, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
STQC DIRECTORATE,
DEPARTMENT OF' INEORMATTON, A ._
TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATION AND V ~
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY",
ELECTONICS NIKETAN,
No.6, CGO COMPLEX
NEW DELHI M 110003.
2. THE SENIOR OIRECTIJR; ' '
ELECTRONIC TEST AND,
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE! '
DEPARTMENT 'Of-"'I;v71?I~ECH~NC%L();G\I:', "
STQCWDIRECTORPLTET, " --. ..
MINISTRY
RING _
INDUSTRKAL ESTATE;I ~ ..
BANGALORE M 56V00E§S_.
AND INI*ORM;AIT'IO<NTECEINOLOGX,
3. THE _CNIO'N OE .I,.NDAI A,V '
REP._I_BY1TS SECRETARY,
* «..MINv-IS*TRy, OE COII/{Ix/I"ONICA"I'1ON
AND INEG.RMATION TECHNOLOGY,
' EL:ECTR{3 SNIIELETAN,
%CGvGI'§COIg:ELEx,
NEW DEL_H.[é--.:_EIE1O003.
'.03? SRI~I§i ;««IURAI.IDIIA}2A, CGSC]
...RESPONDENTS
"EH18 PETITION IS FILEID UNDER ARTICLES 228 AND
.22'7"GI"¥-' THE COTNSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
"FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ON PERUSAL AND
EMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.05.2010
PASSED BY '.I'HE }*ION"£3L-E CEI\"1"RAL £XDMINIS'I.'RATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN OA.NOII1.6/IOV_V1I)i?,
x'&NNEXUI{EZ~A AND ORDER DATED 20.102010 PASS.E:D_"E3Y
",I'HE HON'Bl.E CENTRAL AI)M1}§HSTRATIV'E ..~7§*Ri£%§JO'§é;-%L.».O
BANGALORE BENCH. IN 1\/IA.NO.309/I0 IN O,a:.NO;"i_v1j'6/1'9
VIBE; ANN43. AS THE: SAME: ARE "ART3I"TT{AR'Y-; I
OISORIMTNATORY AND VOID FOR 'mI:: REASONS STATEE) "
I N 'I'I**IE PETITION.
IN WI) NOA0540 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
TMAHEINDRAN,
S/O V 'I"'I~£ALAINIALA.I, .
AGED ABOUT 48 _
WORKING AS ADDmONAL.,_"
DIRECTOR/SCIENTIST _
O/O THE ELECTRO.NIC;_'TES"1""..: _
AND DEVELO§5M£%;NT OENTRE, 1' "
DEPARTME1'JT"O__F'-«1Nf'ORMAT1ON
TECI{NOLOGY,--::__Sf-.'_QC"~' I
DI'RECTORAT§3.._ MTT;.Is'1'R3'~.OF
COMM:3NIcA'TTQNs'IAND¢A I «
INFORMATION T1:*cj':HNOi;OGY, '
RIGH ROAD;'PEE-NYA',.
IN'DUSTRIA'L_ESTA1T_E,'.. T'
BANGALORE,' :-- T560058."-
RESJIQENT OF 172:8,
" =5?" '*B':'MA1N";-- Rpc LAYOUT,
, JAYANA{jAR"~EAST,
13A.NOA;O._RE"#350040. ...PE'I'iTIONI:?R
(BY M sij?£3=;éAMANYA BHAT FOR
I I _ M/s"'sUB'BA;:2AO AND C0,. ADV.)
'1';_"TT:«:<*;'* DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
____"'STQC DIRECTORATE,
_ 'V O£:pA1=2TMENT OF INFORMATION,
TEECHNO};-OGY. MINISTRY OR
COMMUNICAWON AND
INFORIVEATION TECHNOLOGY,
ELECTONICS NIKETAN,
NOS. CGO COMPLEX,
NEW DELIII - I 10003.
2. THE SENIOR DIRECTOR,
ELECTRONIC TEST AND
DEv'ELOPI\/IEAIT CENTRE,
DEPARTMENT OF TECIINOLOOY,
STQCMDIRECTORATE,
MINISTRY OR COMMUNICATIONS ' _
AND INFORMATION TECHNOL.O0Yg,«. "
RING ROAD, PEENYA.' ' .. " ~
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ' ;
BANGALORE A 560058. I
3. THEUNIO1¥FO7*7I,I1\IDI}*K, % _
REP. BY ITS.--SECRETARy,.__ . 5 .
MINISTRY OF c;OMIvR;INICATI'OI\II' .
AND INI«fOVRIvIATIO.:}I TEC'III\I'O'LOOjy;
ELECTRONICS?.NII<:I§;'I'A.N*,» '
NOS. COO COIvII?EEX.'T .. -
NEW DELHI. A I I_000j_:I, '__ ...RESpOI\IDEI\ITS
(BY SR1 R OCOGSC)
.O"I'I:_1"-I'I'A.S RET1TIOI\'I"'IS EILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
.227, _OI4'_v'I'1F{E34vCO1\1STITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
.TIIE'IMI9II0I\IEDj.. ORDER DATED 0'?.06.2010, PASSED BY
'TH'E.__«I~I'OI\If_EI;I:;" CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
EA:\,ICALOm--__EENCI~I. IN OA.NO.1_15/10 VIDE ANNAA AND
ORDER DATED 20.10.10 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
¥_,ADMIN'STRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN
2 _M.A,NO.308/10 IN OA.NO.l}5/10 VIDE3 ANN~B, AS THE
"«.SAMF3_«ARE ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND VOID FOR
_ TFJE REASONS STATED IN THE PETITION.
IN WP NO.4054-<1 OF 2010
LBETWEEEKE:
VLJAYKUEVIAR R SARUR
S /O RA.CHAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 4} YEARS,
WORKING AS SCIENTIST 'B',
0/0 TI»-IE EI;.EC'I:'RONIC TEST,
AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
DEPARTMENT OE INFOREVIATION
TECHNOLOGY, STQC A
DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
RING ROAD, PEENYA -- "
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.
BANGALORE - 560058,. .
RESIDENT OE NO. 14,' _ _, ' ~
4'"-I CROSS, SIOAI)AI~IALLIIIvIAIN;~.R;OAO_; _
BANGALORE W 560073. H " T ' 1 ._ ...PETITIO1\}'ER
{BY SR1 M SU;BR2'IA-TANYA EI'IAT"FORI' ~~
M /S SIIBEARAO AIJVII'
AND: V' A Z 2
I. THE DEii5"£?fI'Y"D'vi--RI§:C'I'C§.R,
STQC DIRECTORATE, ,
' ' . DEPARTMENT OF 'IIWORI\/IATION,
.'JZ'E.CHNO.E,.C)G'{.. MINISTRY OF
CQ§liMUNICATFIQN AND
' EsII?<3«RIviA;_Ir*zO'Ix_I'TECHNOLOGY'.
EL.EcTO'NIO--SAINIKETAN,
NOJS, C-'GO' COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI -- 110003.
5 THE SENIOR DIREZCTOR,
"ELECTRONIC TEST AND
EAEVELO PMENT CENTRE.
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY.
6
S'1'QC~«I)IR}<ICTORA'I'}§,
MINISTRY OF COEVIMUNICATIONS
AND }'NI*-'ORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
RIEREG ROAD, PEIENYA,
INDUSTRLAL ESTATE.
BANGALORE ~ 560058.
3. THE'. UNION OF INDIA.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNECATION ,
AND INFORMATION TECIINOVEOOY.
ELECTRONICS NIKETAN. -- "
NOS, COO COMPLEX, _ --- 3
NEW DELIII » 110003. . .. ...RESpONDENT.§
(BY SR1 A Ix/IURA_LIDIIAR;"--C'cAS'c._ 'Riff-_SI _
THIS PETITION IS' EILEI.) IINOER 'ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITEJTION "OE _IN.D'IA' PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPU(}N'ED_ OR;DER_-..DATED'O7.,O6.2010 PASSED BY
THE IION'EI,E--::_ 'e;;EN'TR._"-4;ADIMNSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
BANGALORE "'«C).vA.NO.I14/2010 VIDE
ANNEXfJRE~A,'I £fi.\ID DA' ED 20.10.2010 PASSED BY
THE H'I'.)N'i:3LE "ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE 'BEI\;C.H"~..a_""'IN M.A.NO.307/2010 IN
O.A.NO.1IzI/_20I0 ' _vIDE_ ANNE AS THE SAME ARE
ARBITRARY, "'vDISCE?.IM'INATORY AND VOID FOR THE
V REASONS.STATED, IN THE PETITION.
EETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY
'=.HEARIN("3~.,'1"HES 'DAT. AJIT J GUNJAL, J. MADE THE
P'-OLI;'IOwIN*O;___ ~
ORDER
these three Writ Petitions are heard and
-«._ "diS"§3OSed Of by this Common Order.
2. All the petit:io:ners questioned the order of transfer before the Central Administrative -5f'1'ii:§uVr1a'l ["i'ri_bunal' for short). The Central "
Tribunai pursuant to the impugne-dc.Qor--derV4'rejeetedi'.wait the applications. But however, 'granted some, the petitioners to report fvo1%.:dL1»ty. it has it further directed the herein" effect remedial measures found that seniors are are being transferreciffl measures are to be taken srtziég
3. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for.' theV_____petitioners was at great pains to p:;,v1'I's_uad_e'.usVA'to___take a View that the said transfers are n'o?:\i'r1'eide19itaIVA'i1:to service. He submits that enquiry was tinitiatczdi"eagairast ail the three petitioners and after the it was concluded, the said transfer is taken place, .___""."itvf»Vouid amount to punishment. He submits that the J fitw transfer has not. taken place in the public interest and the same is not reflectted in the trarisfer order. H
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Muralidhar.--a,§peari11g fora. the respondent supports the order. ssiribrnits"th-at ail' the petitioners are serving.»i1i.__BaIigaiore s5n(:fle .29 to years and the transfer is the ofgvfa public policy. Notwithstandiriif' is not stated in the transfer order nevertheless the transfe_r..is ll E3. """ "wife _ha{?fe'pemsed the papers.
6. 'VA.ppare11tly'E' petitioners are serving in Bang:aior'e for"ri'i--or§:___than 20 years. It is no doubt true »t.h'at._al.l_'1-hetdpetitioners for one reason or the other, V.ast'--.'."_Ba:igalore indicating that the children are studyingiri Kannada medium school. their parents are V' and they have eertaiin difficulties to be moved out of Bangalore. Indeed, all the three petitioners would say 9 the same thing and represent. the same thing". in-afact, one of the petitioners woulcl even go t.o the submittiing that his wife is woiking as a Reeeptio.nI.'st a private Dental College, it is asriorktéraénsiferrtzialie"joh; and he should not be transferred}._ O~byiot1sl_y,"vJe' are"'Of'--.. the VICVV that transfer is inciclental to servvice. "Unless it is pointed out that it isa malaiide and' he islltransferred because of extraneous reason'the~._t'rajnsfer orders are not interfered,» ' ' V --
7.v ____ l'tV.V%'V"is'::.; :v__;V1_ot._j" " d.isptfte that disciplinary proceedings' against the petitioner some time in the Indeed, the enquiry is now _ completed ancllflth-e.tn_1_atter is before the Central Vigilance A'*._VConizniagionr...Vdindeed. the statement of objections filed beforeilthe would indicate that the proceedings Iwere initiated for imposition of major penalty, which as I titles, also includes dismissal, removal irorn service. they would also contend that appmvai of the yr ta ///°' eorripeizent. autho1*ity is also taken for inii;.i2if:io_n of disciplinary proceedings against the petitic>ners';'V«.:.f"i't:"*ivs aiso submitted that the enquiry is matter is pending eonsicierationr Vigilance Commission. In f3:'ct<', objections wouid disclose tha:§'~~.txvo 'V have been up heidv..~__. petiti'o*ne'rs were permitted to stay in the enquiry could be corn}§i:e:ied After the eoiripietiorr 'petitioners are being ease of Ramadhar Pandey:z'Vs.«'. others (1993 Supp[3) SCC
35) o1:>se'rv_:ed£.th:it'. piihlie policy must be reflected in Btitiiiihowever, we notice that the Apex Courts' interfere soieiy on the ground that they*~..__are'v'c,1rie~' to retire in another two months which is iiotthe 'case here. in so far as the decision in the case _ of 'Srfiriesfi Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (200912 SEC 592], the Apex Court. was of the View that an order 'fl that any trarzsfer which takes place during the mid M of trarisfer is an adr11ir3isi:rat:ive order. Trzmsfer, which is orciiriariiy an iiaeidem. of service should':Emit:-. 'i3a.e interfered With, save in cases where inter al£t_1"rncdg::i on the part of the authority is pr-0'V'ed. two kinds ~ first, malice V V A I L law. We notice that there is fide rriala fide could have to resfiendents if the transfers were after the articles of cha1~g¢§_'.were i§s.si1ei:i.«:""Bt.rt'__ii'oweve1", that has not been pjetiitiriizeifsiiwere permitted to stay in complete. It is only after theenquiryisA:_§)Vei*~,..¢_ti'iey were transferred.
"Mr. "Bi*i21t,____Awouic1 press into service anrither deeisiVr)ri_(>f Court in the case of Director of School and others VS' 0. Karuppa 'I'hevarz '.Vand4"aI1eth.er reported in (1994)28 Administrative it Triléiinais Cases 99, wherein the Apex Court was of the MW in fact secor1d,"m8.1iee'-~ir§'~. academic: term, normaiiy shouid not be given effect to unless exigencies of service or admitriistratiori. indeed, we notice the order of transfer was in March 2010. Obviousiy, the petitioners cannot say it was izfthe middle of the aoademio year. In fact, the was Coming to an end. But. however th_eV_4'pet.iVtiioners"
flied an application and obtained fact, we find that it is the pet_itioriers"who;'represe1d;ted that they should not be disturbed iii} the aeaderigie year I'?! is over. Having said We .aret"he view that the impugriiedd" oreler by' Tribunai cannot be faulted?" -. it «.
,,._%;:{'«~{'er;¢e, V'a'i£..:v three Writ Petitions stand rejeeted.'«.%B1;{t.however, we are of the view that the said not be given effect to tiii 315* March '.V2O1i4''. .. Thihsx is subject to all the petitioners fiiing an before this Court that they wiii join. their new posting by the end of March 2011. Only on such filing sf urzdertaking, 1:.hey are permified {(3 stay back. Compiiamte in one week.
Appkication for Va(:ating stay does not. survive for considemtion. Hence stands disposed of. g