Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)
Sh. Amar Veer Singh vs Union Of India Through on 3 January, 2013 cites

B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986

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.    .
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 292 - S Natarajan - Full Document

Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2008

25. The Civil Appeal No. 7308 of 2008 decided on 16-12-2008, Apex Court considered mala fides in transfer matter from the angles of malice in fact and malice in law and held that order of transfer passed in lieu of punishment was liable to be quashed being wholly illegal and further held that transfer order not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e anonymous complaint such order in question would attract the principle of malice in law and would be liable to be set aside. It is appropriate to state the facts of the case to know whether the law laid in Somesh Tiwari's case [supra] would be applicable or distinguishable? The Appellant was an officer of Indian Revenue Service and was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise at Bhopal, where the employees posted at the Bhopal office of the respondents apprehending disciplinary as also criminal proceedings at the hands of the appellant on the basis of the reassessment of the files undertaken by him, an anonymous complaint was made alleging caste-bias on his part, pursuant whereto an order of transfer was passed against him in August, 2005. Earlier,he had filed a representation stating that, as he had been undergoing some treatment, he should be retained at Bhopal. Appellant, however, contended that in view of the fact that he had taken action against some erring officers, they were instrumental in sending the said anonymous letter on the basis whereof no action should have been taken in the light of the circular letters issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. However, an enquiry was conducted into the said anonymous complaint wherein allegations made against the appellant were not found to be true but still recommendations were made that he be transferred from Bhopal. Only on that basis he was transferred to Shillong. He represented praying that on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, he should be retained at Bhopal for at least one year which was not responded to and feeling aggrieved he filed O.A. No. 897 of 2005 before the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal which was decided on 27.9.2005 with a direction to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 29th August, 2005 and take a decision by passing a reasoned order. However by an order dated 19th October, 2005 the said representation was rejected. He moved another representation dated 25th October, 2005 which was rejected by an order dated 27th October, 2005. Thus the appellant filed O.A. No.1042 of 2005 before the Tribunal, Jabalpur and during the pendency of the said O.A., respondents while considering the matter of promotion, posting and transfer in the grade of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, passed order dated 28th December, 2005 inter alia transferring on administrative consideration the appellant from Shillong to Ahmedabad. The orders under challenge before the Tribunal were, thus, the orders dated 22nd August, 2005 ; 19th October, 2005 and 28th December, 2005. Considering the fact that the appellant had not reported at Ahmedabad and the order of transfer was an administrative one, the Tribunal by its order dated 14th March, 2006 dismissed the OA. Aggrieved by the order the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and during the pendency of the said writ petition, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the ground that he had not joined the post at Ahmedabad and the High Court passed an interim order on 17th April, 2006, directing that since the transfer of the petitioner to Ahmedabad was sub-judice the disciplinary authority would not take any disciplinary action against him for the time being. The High Court by the judgment dated 25th September, 2006 while opining that the order of transfer could not be passed on the basis of an anonymous complaint, which on enquiry having been found to be incorrect, held that he would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing fifteen days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed. The Apex Court observed that the appellant should have joined at his transferred post, he did not do so as a result whereof he might have committed a misconduct, but while invoking the doctrine of `no work no pay', the Apex court considered the conduct of both the parties. While modifying the judgment of the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal with direction that "keeping in view the fact, that on the one hand the appellant did not join his posting at Ahmedabad, although no order of stay was passed and on the other wholly unwarranted and reprehensible conduct on the part of the authorities of the respondents, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if during the period from 28th December, 2005 till his joining his post at Bhopal, the appellant is treated to be on leave and the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order invoking the leave rules applicable in this behalf. It is ordered accordingly." In the context of the above orders, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant is extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 563 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Damodar Prasad Pandey And Ors on 20 September, 2004

12. In the setting of the facts narrated within, we may examine the legal aspects now. Transfer is an exigency and incidence of service and is an administrative decision. The executive has unfettered rights to transfer its employees from one place to another place. However, interference by the Tribunal with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. In a catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court viz. in B. Varadha Rao versus State of Karnataka (AIR 1986 SC 1955); Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1991 SC 532); Union of India and Others versus S. L. Abbas (AIR 1993 SC 2444); State of M.P. and Another Versus S.S.Kourav and others [1995-3-SCC-270]; Arvind Duttatraya Dhande Versus State of Maharashtra [1997-6-SCC-169]; Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bangalore Verus Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, Bhadravati and Another [1999-6-SLR-77]; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Versus Shri Bhagwan and Another [2001-8-SCC-574]; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan versus Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others [2004-12-SCC-299]; Airport Authority of India Versus Rajeev Ratan Pandey [JT 2009 (10) SC 472]; Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India and Others [2009-2-SCC-592]; and 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 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. Further, we are guided by the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Masood Ahmad Versus State of U.P. [2007-8-SCC-150] decided on 18.09.2007, which reads as follows :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 243 - Full Document

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

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 s he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11 SCC 402].
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001

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).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 711 - Full Document
1   2 Next