Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. At the hearing the appellant appearing in person has submitted that although the appellant holds a transferable post, the order of transfer cannot be made mala fide and for an oblique purpose. An order of transfer may appear innocuous on the face of it but it on scrutiny of the facts it transpires that the order of transfer has been passed in order to penalise a concerned employee and not for administrative exigencies, the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. The appellant has contended that an order of transfer has various consequences and the concerned employee and the members of the family often suffer seriously by the order of transfer. He has also contended that mala fide may not always be established very convincingly but from the facts pleaded in the case, the inference of mala fide may be drawn by the Court. The appellant has submitted that he had to move Courts of law against various unjust decisions of the Department and as a matter of fact he filed a contempt application before this Court alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. Since the order passed by this Court was later on followed by the Department, the appellant in fairness submitted before this Court at the hearing of the contempt application that the said application should be disposed of in view of the compliance of the order. The contempt application was thus disposed of by this Court on July 15, 1991. So long the contempt application was pending and the appellant was appearing in person, the respondent No. 2 did not pass any order of transfer against him but immediately after the disposal of the said contempt application, the respondent No. 2 seized the opportunity and got the said Shri S.N. Patra transferred to Cuttack and in his place the appellant was transferred. The proximity of the time of disposal of the contempt application and the passing of the impugned order of transfer against the appellant clearly indicates that the said order of transfer was passed only to get rid of the appellant and to penalise him for making the application for contempt and also making allegations against the respondent No. 2. The appellant has contended that there was no necessity to pick up the appellant for being transferred to Calcutta when in past he had suffered nine orders of transfer. He has also contended that there was no bona fide administrative reasons to transfer Shri Patra from Calcutta to Bhubaneshwar but fortunately for Shri Patra such order was desired by the Hon'ble Minister of Information and Broadcasting and unfortunately for the appellant the respondent No. 2 was looking for an opportunity to get rid of him. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order should be set aside.