Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.3. If the charges levelled against the petitioner are perused closely, it becomes evident that he had remained absent for 218 days from the duty without any authority. The statement of charges also shows that he had not joined the duty when transferred at Bhuj only because he wanted respondent no. 2 to transfer him to Ahmedabad or Gandhinagar circle. Though Mr. Oza, has tried to defend the conduct of the petitioner by submitting that out of 218 days he had attended the Court proceedings at Ahmedabad for nearly 65 days and the cases in which he had given attendance have resulted into conviction. It is his say that the petitioner had not sat quietly at home enjoying his unauthorized leave. Be that as it may, the fact remains that inspite of the order passed by respondent no. 2 requiring him to work at Bhuj, he had not obeyed the said order and had insisted that he should be placed at Ahmedabad. Transfer is an unavoidable incident of Government service and whenever the order of transfer is passed, normally it is presumed that it is passed in routine course of administration and for administrative exigencies. It is also well established principle of law by now that if any Government servant intends to challenge the order of transfer on any count, he is first required to report at transferred place and resume duty there, thereafter he can raise challenge. In the instant case, for about five months he did not report for duty. It was only on 27th April, 2000 that he once reported on condition that he should be posted immediately to Ahmedabad as he would not be able to work for a minute at Bhuj. Further he decided on his own the itenary and travelled and performed duties at places not authorised by his superiors. Inquiry Officer has given a clear finding that for this purpose he was required to obtain prior authorisation of his superior officer which he had not done. Thus he has remained absent unauthorisedly for a period between 30th September, 1999 and 27th April, 2000. This attitude of the petitioner is also required to be kept in view while examining other charges which are levelled against him. He, after the order of transfer was issued against him, entered into correspondence with respondent no. 2 and even threatened him vide letter dated 5th November, 1999 that if he did not transfer him to Ahmedabad or Gandhinagar, by cancelling the order of transfer at Bhuj, he would not only expose his misdeeds in the press conference but he would also file Public Interest Litigation before this Court. Not only that but by another letter dated 17th January, 2000 he threatened respondent no. 2 that he should take appropriate decision regarding his transfer within four days otherwise he would expose before the High Court all the scandals relating to food and drug cases by producing convincing evidence and also forward the same to the Chief Minister, Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and also the Minister of the said department. Further the language used by petitioner in his correspondence for this purpose is also not befitting the Government servant. Instances of use of intemperate language have been described in detail while discussing charge No. 7. Some of the items require special mention. They are : '(a) his transfer to Bhuj was not only illegal but disgusting, (b) respondent no. 2 runs the administration of Food & Drugs Control Department as his private concern, (c) the Commissioner is encouraging irregularities and corrupt practices in the department and by such corrupt administration he was damaging the health of people, (d) he was also creating scandals with the help of Food Inspectors, (e) whatever the other officers will have to suffer on account of scandals, respondent no. 2 would be responsible for the same, (f) whatever the scandals that have been done by the officers of this department in the past he (the petitioner) would be constrained to bring them to light even at the cost of the discipline (of the service), (g) respondent no. 2 should cancel his order of transfer, which is illegal and he should be immediately posted at Ahmedabad or Gandhinagar, (h) that respondent no. 2 is directly involved in corrupt practices and if the order of transfer was not cancelled, he would expose scandals to the public and whatever the consequences it would be sole responsibility of respondent no. 2, (i) if the order was not cancelled, he would be compelled to take such steps, (j) he would expose them by having a meeting with the Secretary, Health Department and the Chief Minister regarding the corrupt practices, the irregularities done with the help of the Health Minister with a view to harass him if his order of transfer was not cancelled within four days, and (k) kindly render your explanation why steps should not be taken against you (respondent no. 2) for the corrupt practices committed by him.' It is, therefore, to be seen that for what purpose and what type of intemperate language has been used. Before continuing further discussion it would be necessary to refer to certain decision cited by Mr. Oza. Firstly on the question of use of indecent language he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 914, wherein it has been held that for use of abusive language the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate. The said decision is decided on the facts of that case where the appellant of that appeal was accused of having abused his co-workers and others. The Apex Court further found that the evidence was not satisfactory. However, it said that even if it was presumed that he had spoken filthy language, the order of dismissal from service could not have been passed against him. This decision cannot apply to the facts of the present case. In that case it was in a heat of moment the appellant had spoken filthy language. It the present case, it is not so. The petitioner has not only used intemperate language, but it has been used with a calculated move to malign and blackmail respondent no. 2 so as to exert mental pressure on him to accede to his demand regarding his transfer to Ahmedabad or Gandhinagar. In a simple terminology, it can be said that he tried to extort the order of transfer in his favour by applying a mean method. Whether respondent no. 2 is guilty of committing the alleged acts of misconduct is totally different issue, with which this Court is at present not concerned. It is the manner in which efforts have been made by the petitioner to bring respondent no. 2 to his knees, that is under scrutiny. When the act is found to be true by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, it can certainly be termed as act of very serious misconduct.

6.4. Mr. Oza has also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramkishan v. Union of India reported in JT 1995 (7) S.C. 43. In the said decision in paragraph 11 it has been held as under :-

"11. It is next to be seen whether imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of the abusive language. No straight jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated."

Obviously, therefore, the said judgment has been passed by the Apex Court on the facts and circumstances of that case. It is on the contrary very specifically laid down that there cannot be any straight jacket formula which could be applied for this purpose. Every case as such is required to be considered on its facts and it is to be found out in what circumstances and in which environment the delinquent used abusive language. As already stated above, it is not only because of the intemperate language the petitioner is sought to be penalized, but also for the purpose for which it was used and that factor was kept in the view while deciding the quantum of punishment. In the cases referred to above, abusive language appears to have been used by the concerned delinquent in a heat of moment on the spot as and when the concerned event took place. In the present case, it is not so. It has been used for similar purpose by the petitioner almost calling upon his superior officer that if you did not grant my demand, you would be totally ruined. It is that attitude which is required to be viewed with seriousness.