Joginder Singh vs U.O.I. and Others

Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Writ Court whereby declining to quash the order No. T.IX-

5/2010-PPERS-D A.3 dated 24.03.2010 passed by the respondents vide which appellant/writ petitioner stands transferred from 72 Bn. CRPF

Channi Himmat Jammu to 127 Bn. CRPF Orissa, he has preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Since the respondents were on caveat, the

same stands discharged after putting Mr. K. K. Pangotra, learned ASGI, on notice.

We have heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and the other relevant documents attached with the instant

appeal.

Mrs. Kour, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, has contended before us that the appellant/writ petitioner has an unblemished

record and for this reason he has been promoted from time to time from the rank of Sub Inspector to Commandant in December, 2007. Presently,

he is working as Commandant, 72 Bn. CRPF Channi Himmat, Jammu. She then submits that he has now been transferred to Orissa not only in

contravention of transfer policy, according to which, the minimum tenure of three years at a particular place of posting is the requirement, but on

account of certain extraneous reasons as well. She submits that it is on the asking of respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 has passed the transfer

order as the appellant/writ petitioner was not having good/cordial relations with him (respondent No. 4) inasmuch as he had pointed out certain

irregularities committed by him in discharge of his official duties. Learned counsel then submits that all these pleas were raised before the learned

Writ Court, but have not been appreciated in the right perspective.

Highlighting some irregularity with regard to the days prescribed for handing over the charge and for reporting at a new place of posting, Mrs.

Kour submits that in order to harass the appellant/writ petitioner, even that period has not been given to him.

Primarily, on the aforesaid grounds, Mrs. Kour has thrown challenge to the order of learned Writ Court.

Mr. Pangotra, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellant/writ petitioner has been transferred strictly as per the

rules, therefore, cannot raise any objection to it. According to him, the plea of mala fide intention is neither here nor there and, therefore, the

learned Writ Court rejected it. He submits that even before the Writ Court he had made a categoric statement that the appellant/writ petitioner will

have complete joining time as per admissible rules. He fairly submits that since he has to join by tomorrow i.e. 18.04.2010 only, he is not averse, if

another ten days' time is granted to him for reporting at a new place of posting and the concerned authority will be informed accordingly.

In our considered view, the appellant/writ petitioner has no case on merits. It is an accepted principle that in public service, transfer is an incident

of service and the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter being the best judge to decide as to how to utilize the services of its

employee. Therefore, the transfer made even in transgression of certain administrative rules/guidelines should not be interfered with until some gross

mala fide or arbitrariness is projected. That does not appear to be the fact situation in the present case. Allegation of mala fides against respondent

No. 4 as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner was duly considered by the learned Writ Court and rejected observing that no mala fide was

alleged against respondent No. 2, who has passed the transfer order. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Writ Court.

A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and, therefore, the transfer

order issued by the competent authority does not violate any of his legal right. The Courts should be very loath in interfering with the order of

transfer as it would amount to substituting its own decision for that of the management. While dealing with this aspect with regard to a member of

armed forces, their Lordships of Apex Court in case titled Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , observed that the

scope of interference by the Court in regard to the members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow as it is for the higher authorities to

decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted and the Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with the order of

transfer of such category of persons unless an exceptionally strong case is carved out. In our considered view, that is certainly not the position in

the present case on its own facts.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the same is dismissed. However, keeping in view the statement made by Mr.

Pangotra at the Bar with regard to the relaxation of joining time, we direct that another ten days' time effective from today i.e. 18.04.2010 shall be

granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to join at a place where he now stands transferred.

Connected CMP also stands disposed of.