Suresh Chandra Sarkar vs State of West Bengal

Basudeva Panigrahi, J.—The writ Petitioner filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the writ Court dated August 11, 1994, in CO. No. 1464 (W) of 1993 dismissing his prayer for quashing the transfer from the post of Circle Inspector of Police, Siliguri, to the Inspector D.I.B., Coochbehar.

Appellant joined as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1968 and in course of time he was promoted to the rank of Inspector in 1978. From then on he was posted at different stations and on June 15, 1990, joined as Inspector-in-Charge at Siliguri P.S. For a short while about 9 months he was transferred to Bagdogra circle as Inspector and again was transferred to his old station. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that all on a sudden he received a signal message on October 7, 1993, through the Respondent No. 5, P. K. Mani (alias Mandi), that he was transferred from Siliguri P.S. to D.I.B., Coochbehar. The Appellant thought that if the transfer was to be worked out during the midst of the academic session, it would cause immeasurable inconveniences, and immediately sent a representation to the Respondent No. 2 for sympathetic consideration and keep the transfer order in abeyance until the end of academic session. His further grievance was that his widow-mother who was aged about 80 years infirm and old and often required hospitalization, since the Appellant being the only male responsible adult and his transfer to a new station would cause neglect in care and nourishment to his mother. If he would be asked to proceed to his new station, then he might have to face other unavoidable impediment, and thus prayed to the authorities either to cancel the transfer order and allow him to continue in his post or not to give effect till his children finished their examination. The Appellant without awaiting the result of his representation simultaneously, filed this writ petition asking to quash the transfer order passed by the authorities on the ground that it was passed under colorable, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of right.

The learned trial Court after elaborate hearing from both parties, observed that there was no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, dismissed the same.

The Appellant having been aggrieved by the above order filed this present appeal and, inter alia, moved for stay operation of the impugned order. After giving an anxious consideration, we were not inclined to grant stay and accordingly, rejected it. On his further request the matter appeared for expeditious hearing.

Mr. Ghosal raised a number of contentions, such as, that the Appellant before could barely complete 3 years was asked by the Respondent No. 2 to join as Inspector D.I.B., Coochbehar. Such transfer is said to have been passed under colorable exercise of right with an extraneous consideration only to accommodate the Respondent No. 5 in the post of Inspector, Siliguri. It is further submitted that even the transfer order which was alleged to have been passed by the Respondent No. 2 was not communicated to him officially. But only a signal was sent through the Respondent No. 5 who was his successor for service of the same on him. The learned Counsel Mr. Ghosal took an inexorable plea that the signal indicating the transfer of the Appellant being sent through the Respondent No. 5 would raise an indelible impression that the authority under extraneous consideration passed such order and, therefore, it is to be presumed to have been passed with closed mind and bias.

The learned Counsel for the State Mr. Ghosh while repelling the contention of the Appellant, submitted that in a general transfer four Inspectors were transferred. In the same order the Appellant was asked to join as Inspector D.I.B., Coochbehac, who would replace the Respondent No. 5. There was no representation by the Respondent No. 5 to accommodate him at Siliguri. Therefore, it cannot he spelt out that such transfer order was passed at the behest of the Respondent No. 5.

We went through the rival contentions of the parties and also the affidavit-in-opposition and reply filed by them. The Appellant never indicated that there was mala fide exercise of right by the Respondent No. 2. In the absence of such averment it is difficult to hold that the order of transfer passed by him was shrouded with other extraneous consideration. When there was no representation or prayer by the Respondent No. 5 to be posted in place of the Appellant it cannot be held that this order was passed only to accommodate the Respondent No. 5. Mr. Ghosal argued with vehemence that since the Appellant''s sons are continuing their studies in college and school and his transfer in the midst of the academic session is worked out, there would be serious dislocation of studies and ultimately their academic career may be hampered. We find there is no merit in this contention. The transfer order was communicated through a signal message on October 7, 1993. Thereafter, he made a representation to the authorities for keeping the same in abeyance. Be it under the Court''s order or on his representation, it could not be worked out till today. If his sons were reading in school and college their study must have come to an end after the academic session. The Appellant''s ground that the transfer order was unjust becomes state particularly after the end of the academic session. A further contention has be*en raised that since the Appellant had detected to a decoity case and the accused are very influential for which they could be able to influence the authorities for getting the Appellant transferred from that station. We do not find that such contentions hold water. The case No. , the date and the name of the accused have not been mentioned in the writ petition. The Appellant was only a supervisory authority and investigation must have been carried out by the 1.0. Therefore, in such situation the grounds for transferring him on that account appears to be too remote. We found that the Petitioner has completed more than 3 years of service at that station. Therefore, there is no logic for the Petitioner to cling to the post any longer. Service jurisprudence also stipulates that if a Government employee, who has a transferable job, is allowed to continue longer period at a station, there would be a tendency for the growth of self-interest. Therefore, in all eventuality he should be disturbed after a reasonable spell.

Mr. Ghosal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, made a fervent plea that the transfer from the post of Inspector of Police to Inspector D.I.B. seemingly to be inferior which is incompatible to his experience, status and service. Therefore, such transfer should be turned out as mala fide. The learned Government Pleader while repelling this contention invited our attention that the post of Inspector D.I.B. is mere onerous and responsible which carries a special pay of Rs. 100. The service of the Appellant, who is a senior Inspector, could be better utilised in such post. In the above situation he has been entrusted to a responsible post, like Inspector D.I.B., Coochbehar. Both posts are similar. We do not find any merit in the contention that the post of Inspector is not commensurate with the status of the Appellant. Accordingly, we reject such unimpressive contentions of the Appellant.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Ghosal strongly urged by placing a decision in the case of P.K. Chinnasamy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, It is, doubtless, true that the Government employee is transferred from one post to another, such transfer and posting must be commensurate with the status, experience and also the seniority. In the preceding paras. It is already held that the Appellant has been posted as Inspector D.I.B. Coochbehar which carries special pay and the same is compatible with his experience and status.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited a decision of State of Punjab and others Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, where it is held:

This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily, the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the Respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused. The Respondents again relied upon another decision reported in the case of Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, It is held in the following matter:

It is true that ''the order of transfer often causes a lot -of difficulties and dislocation in the family set-up of the concerned employees, but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department.

From the decision cited supra it is clear that even though there may be some personal difficulties of the employee on the transfer to a new place, but those matters should be left to the discretion of the authority, and the Courts seldom interfere with such transfer.

The question then comes to the fore whether the transfer can be quashed on the ground of infraction of the Regs. 835(p). Those regulations are only administrative guidelines framed by the highest Police hierarchy. Since those Rules lay a broad outline to what extent at the most a Police officer can stay at a station, it would be improper to construe that an officer should invariably be allowed to continue upto the maximum period indicated therein.

In the instant case, it is found that the Petitioner has already completed almost three years at the station. Therefore, the administrative authority thought it expedient to transfer him from the post of Inspector of Police, Siliguri, to Inspector D.I.B., Coochbehar. The learned writ Court has elaborately discussed all these contentions raised by the Appellant and has left no stone unturned. We do not propose to proliferate our findings by multiplying number of citations.

In the above backdrop of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances there would be no order as to cost.

G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.

I agree.