Om Prakash vs The Director, Directorate Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari

These two writ petitions, essentially relating to the same subject matter, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, holding the post of Accountant and posted in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Churu (''the DTO, Churu''), came to be transferred to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Churu by the order dated 22.12.2011. By the same order, the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, was posted in the office of the DTO, Churu in place of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (''the Tribunal''), being Appeal No.1449/2011, seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2011 and also prayed for interim relief. On the prayer for interim relief, the Tribunal considered the matter on 25.01.2012 and passed an ex-parte stay order to the effect that if the appellant had not joined pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.12.2011, its operation shall remain stayed until further orders.

It appears from the material placed on record that pursuant to the said order dated 22.12.2011, the respondent No.3 had submitted his joining in the office of the DTO, Churu on 28.12.2011; and the DTO, Churu issued an order on 19.01.2012 relieving the petitioner for joining in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Churu. As noticed, the petitioner had preferred the appeal that was considered on 25.01.2012 and conditional interim order was passed staying the operation of the order impugned. Upon receipt of this stay order dated 25.01.2012, the DTO, Churu purportedly relieved the respondent No.3 by the order dated 02.02.2012 for his joining in the office of the Assistant Director, Agricultural Department, Chidawa, Jhunjhunu pursuant to an earlier order of posting dated 25.10.2011.

Thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No. 159/2012; and also submitted his reply in the appeal as filed by the present petitioner. The Tribunal considered the question of interim relief in both the appeals on 26.03.2012 and passed separate orders vacating the interim order as passed in the appeal filed by the present petitioner; and granting an interim order in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 to the effect that the operation of the order dated 02.02.2012 would remain stayed if the appellant (i.e., the respondent No.3 herein) had not joined pursuant thereto. The orders so passed in the two appeals are sought to be questioned in these writ petitions.

It is contended that posting the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, on the post of Accountant remains entirely improper; that posting the respondent No. 3 in the office of DTO, Churu has been wholly illegal and unwarranted, particularly when earlier, the Director himself pointed out various reasons including the disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders against the respondent No.3 for not posting him in the transport department dealing with substantial revenue. It is also submitted that impugned order dated 22.12.2011 had been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 and hence, calls for interference.

The Tribunal has found justified the transfer of the petitioner in its impugned order as passed in appeal No.1449/2011 while indicating that the petitioner has remained posted at Churu since the year 1985 and that there was no ground to show that if the transfer order was malafide or unauthorized. The Tribunal has said:-

The Tribunal has found no justification in the order dated 02.02.2012 as passed in relation to the respondent No.3 and has stayed its operation in the order passed in Appeal No.159/2012 while observing as under:-

This Court is not inclined to consider any interference in these matters for several reasons. The transfer is the normal incident of service and undeniably, the petitioner holds a transferable post. By the basic impugned order dated 22.12.2011, he has only been shifted from the office of DTO, Churu to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Churu. It sounds rather strange that the petitioner seeks to question even such a transfer order as if to suggest that he has got some indefeasible right to remain posted only in the office of DTO, Churu. No such right is available nor could be acceded to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has remained posted only at Churu right from the year 1985 gives rise to several obvious questions. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that as per the guidelines, a person holding the post of Accountant is, as far as possible, to be posted in his home district. It goes without saying that the guidelines are not of statutory character and cannot be operated in the manner that puts rather a question mark on the department in regard to the posting of the incumbents. Be that as it may, this particular aspect is left at that only because the subject matter of these writ petitions relate only to the orders on the prayers for interim relief by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has, on the relevant considerations, vacated the interim order as earlier passed in favour of the petitioner and has rightly passed interim order in favour of the respondent No.3. In fact, as on 25.01.2012, before the interim order was passed by the Tribunal, the events had taken place that the respondent No.3 had indeed submitted his joining in the office of DTO, Churu as back as on 28.12.2011 and then, the DTO had relieved the present petitioner on 19.01.2012. In the face of the position that the respondent No.3 had submitted his joining and the present petitioner had been relieved, there was no justification for the Tribunal to have passed the order on 25.01.2012 in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly vacated such interim order on being apprised of all the relevant facts in Appeal No.1449/2011. As a necessary corollary, the operation and effect of the order dated 02.02.2012 whereby the respondent No.3 was sought to be relieved by the DTO, Churu was required to be stayed and the Tribunal has rightly stayed the same by its other interim order as passed in Appeal No.159/2012.

The matter being considered only in relation to the question of interim relief, not much of the comments on the merits appear requisite but it goes without saying that neither the transfer order could be questioned with an abstract reference to the guidelines nor could be said to be malafide or invalid only if passed in order to accommodate a particular person, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, that in a given case, a competent authority could issue transfer order even with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship. The petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed.