AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the third respondent wherein and
by which the petitioner, who was the Dog Handler in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security [for short, ''BCAS''], was transferred to the Regional
Office of the BCAS at Calcutta with immediate effect. The said order was communicated by the fourth respondent.
According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent had threatened him with transfer and it was due to his malafide instigation, he has been
transferred to Calcutta. In the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve the respondents by 11.10.2006. The
matter came to be heard after notice to the respondents on 18.4.2007.
I have heard the arguments of Mr. M. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gunasekar, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while attacking the order of transfer, mainly relied upon the alleged threat issued by the fifth respondent. In
fact, the petitioner was given a charge memo dated 10.4.2006 framed under Rule 16 of the C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965. The second charge memo
was also given on the same date signed by the fourth respondent. The first charge memo is with reference to the indiscipline on his part and his
behaviour on 02.02.2005 and the second charge memo relates to his own behaviour on 18.8.2005 towards his superiors. The learned Counsel for
the petitioner, on this ground, wants to contend that it is based upon the misconduct and no enquiry has been held and out of four Constables, who
were working for more than ten years in Chennai Region, the petitioner alone has been transferred out of Region and that the transfer did not have
the approval of the first respondent. He also stated that initially, the post of Dog Handler was made only at Chennai and they were giving the
impression that they will be working only at Chennai. All these allegations have been denied by the fourth respondent and it was clearly stated in
paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit dated 12.01.2007, which read as follows:
Para 6: As regards to the averments made in para 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the appeal of the petitioner was under consideration of the
Appellate Authority. After taking into consideration full facts of the case, the Appellate Authority has rejected the said appeal. However, in view of
the fact that the atmosphere in the Chennai Dog Squad office was being further vitiated by the conduct of the petitioner, it was considered by the
competent authority to transfer him in public interest from Chennai to Kolkata. Accordingly, the said order for his transfer to Kolkata was issued
on 15.9.2006 and he was relieved from Chennai office vide order No. C/DCS/Est/06847, dated 20.9.2006. The representation submitted by the
petitioner for cancellation of the said transfer order has also been considered by the competent authority and rejected. The petitioner has however
in-defiance of the official orders failed to report to the office at Kolkata. Non-compliance of the said transfer orders has constituted a violation of
conduct rule on the part of the petitioner, which further renders him liable for another disciplinary action.
Para 7: The contention of the petitioner made in para 9 of the affidavit that the post of Dog Handler is not a transferable post is wrong. Incumbents
of all posts carry the liability to serve anywhere in the country in the public interest. This is made clear while circulating the vacancy by the
department. However, frequent inter-regional transfers are not made because the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security is a very small organisation
having miniscule staff strength. To ensure that the working of the Bureau is not disturbed, transfers are not made in the normal course. However, as
and when it is considered necessary in the public interest or administrative exigencies, the transfers are ordered.
With reference to the approval being sought for by the first respondent, it has been clearly stated in the impugned order of transfer dated
15.9.2006 that the same was approved by the Additional Commissioner of Security (DSC). The power of this Court conferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of transfer is very limited.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another,
wherein in paragraph 5, it has been observed as follows:
Para 5: ''The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to
whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. 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. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions
prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were
appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of
administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri
Bhagwan.
Further, the Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, has observed in paragraph 7 of
the judgment as follows:
Para 7: ''It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should
continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra, in the law governing or conditions of service.
Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or
passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or
every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford
an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or
denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of
service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and
secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also
be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in
violation of any statutory provision.
In the absence of any valid legal grounds and factual pleadings regarding mala fides, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly,
dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.