Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
650 Ducruz Compound vs Union Of India on 12 February, 2009 cites

Labh Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 May, 2001

2. It is strenuously argued by the counsel for the applicant that he could not have been transferred from RMS to Post Office as nature of duties is absolutely different. Even otherwise, the order is mala fide as it is based on the complaint given by a person, who was himself unauthorized person because he could not have travelled in the mail van. Since transfer is ordered on account of misconduct, it is punitive in nature as such it could not have ordered without verifying the facts. In any case, the complaint itself is lodged after a delay of one year, therefore, it could not have been acted upon. The order is without jurisdiction because it could not have been issued without taking prior approval from the Chief Post Master General (hereinafter referred to as CPMG). Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the complaint dated 26.5.2008 (page 16) to show that the incident was of 1.6.2007 whereas complaint was made almost after one year which shows things have been manipulated. He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajendra Chaubey Vs. U.O.I. & Another reported in 493 Swamys CL Digest 1995/1, Bhagwan Bux Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others reported in 402 Swamys CL Digest 1996/2 and Labh Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others reported in 446 Swamys CL Digest 1996/1.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Sri Janardhan Debanath And Anr on 13 February, 2004

10. Replying to the averments of applicant, respondents have stated that since misbehaviour of applicant with SSPOs, Hoshangabad, M.P. was proved in an inhouse enquiry, they have rightly transferred him in order to maintain discipline. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Shri Janardhan Debanath and Another reported in 2004 (4) SCC 245.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 492 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Siya Ram And Anr on 5 August, 2004

24. As far as public interest is concerned, it has again been held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Siya Ram reported in AIR 2004 SC 4121 the contention was that respondent could not have been transferred without completing the enquiry, it was thus mala fide and punitive. It was held by Honble Supreme Court that the question whether transfer was in public interest could not have been looked into by the High Court as that would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 416 - A Pasayat - Full Document

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

27. In above backdrop, if the facts of present case are tested, we find respondents have given sufficient instances to show that applicant was not working satisfactorily in RMS Wing and he had indulged in misbehaviour also, therefore, it is definitely a case of transfer in public interest. Applicant has not been able to show any violation of rules. As far as mala fides are concerned, though it has been alleged but except making bald statement, no material is placed on record to show why respondent No.3 would be biased against the applicant. Law on the point of mala fides is well settled. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, wherein it was held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004

In State of U.P.& Ors. vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) SC SLJ 42,it was held that: Even challenge to transfer on account of malafide must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or based on concrete materials. Mere allegations of malafide or on consideration borne out of conjecture or surmises without any strong and convincing reasons cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document
1