Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 10302/2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: November 20, 2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: November 20, 2017
W.P.(C) 10302/2017
ASHU SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.R.Khatana, Mr.Ashish Chauhan and Mr.Kushagra Bansal, Advocates
ASHU SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.R.Khatana, Mr.Ashish Chauhan and Mr.Kushagra Bansal, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for R-1
Mr.B.K.Sood, Advocate for R-2 and R-3
Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for R-1
Mr.B.K.Sood, Advocate for R-2 and R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
(ORAL)
CM No.42035/2017 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Petitioner is a Group ‘B’ employee of respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), who vide impugned order of 8th November, 2017 (Annexure A-7) has been transferred from Sahibabad to Mumbai. The grievance of petitioner is that the impugned transfer is contrary to the
Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) which provides for transfer within the
2017:DHC:7072 zone. Petitioner asserts that petitioner has been transferred outside his zone.
Mr.B.K.Sood, who appears on behalf of respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) to point out that the transfer can be outside the zone also for administrative reasons and submits on instructions that the impugned transfer is, in fact, on the ground of administrative exigencies. To assert so, Mr.B.K.Sood, learned counsel for respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has produced some office notings of the respondent while claiming privilege and submits that the impugned transfer of petitioner is well justified.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the transfer of petitioner is vitiated by malafides and draws attention of this
Court to petitioner’s ACR (Annexure A-2) to point out that his knowledge, ability and willingness to accept responsibility has been found to be ‘Good’. It is pointed out that the fact of ailment of petitioner’s wife and mother has been brought to the notice of respondents vide e-mail of 8th November, 2017 followed by written representation of 10th November, 2017 but to no avail. To assert malafides, reliance is placed upon a decision of Supreme Court in Somesh
Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 592.
Upon hearing and on perusal of Transfer Policy in question, material on record and the decision cited, I find that petitioner’s transfer is not contrary to the Transfer Policy as Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy
(Annexure A-6) provides for transfer outside zone for administrative exigencies. In the matter of transfer of employees, Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC
178 has re-emphasised that the Courts are always reluctant in interfering with transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or suffers from malafides.
Although malafides had been alleged, but vaguely and so, reliance placed upon decision in Somesh Tiwari (supra) is misplaced. The petitioner’s plea of his mother and wife’s ailment is of no avail as medical facilities are available in Mumbai. While taking note of the administrative reasons put forth by the respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), I refrain to interfere with the impugned transfer as I find that it is not vitiated by any malafide. Nor it is contrary to the Transfer
Policy. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Petitioner is granted a week’s time to join at the place where he has been transferred and if he does not do so, then respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) is at liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
CM No.42036/2017 Disposed of as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
(ORAL)
CM No.42035/2017 Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Petitioner is a Group ‘B’ employee of respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), who vide impugned order of 8th November, 2017 (Annexure A-7) has been transferred from Sahibabad to Mumbai. The grievance of petitioner is that the impugned transfer is contrary to the
Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) which provides for transfer within the
2017:DHC:7072 zone. Petitioner asserts that petitioner has been transferred outside his zone.
Mr.B.K.Sood, who appears on behalf of respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) to point out that the transfer can be outside the zone also for administrative reasons and submits on instructions that the impugned transfer is, in fact, on the ground of administrative exigencies. To assert so, Mr.B.K.Sood, learned counsel for respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has produced some office notings of the respondent while claiming privilege and submits that the impugned transfer of petitioner is well justified.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the transfer of petitioner is vitiated by malafides and draws attention of this
Court to petitioner’s ACR (Annexure A-2) to point out that his knowledge, ability and willingness to accept responsibility has been found to be ‘Good’. It is pointed out that the fact of ailment of petitioner’s wife and mother has been brought to the notice of respondents vide e-mail of 8th November, 2017 followed by written representation of 10th November, 2017 but to no avail. To assert malafides, reliance is placed upon a decision of Supreme Court in Somesh
Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 592.
Upon hearing and on perusal of Transfer Policy in question, material on record and the decision cited, I find that petitioner’s transfer is not contrary to the Transfer Policy as Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy
(Annexure A-6) provides for transfer outside zone for administrative exigencies. In the matter of transfer of employees, Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC
178 has re-emphasised that the Courts are always reluctant in interfering with transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or suffers from malafides.
Although malafides had been alleged, but vaguely and so, reliance placed upon decision in Somesh Tiwari (supra) is misplaced. The petitioner’s plea of his mother and wife’s ailment is of no avail as medical facilities are available in Mumbai. While taking note of the administrative reasons put forth by the respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), I refrain to interfere with the impugned transfer as I find that it is not vitiated by any malafide. Nor it is contrary to the Transfer
Policy. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Petitioner is granted a week’s time to join at the place where he has been transferred and if he does not do so, then respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) is at liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
CM No.42036/2017 Disposed of as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
JUDGMENT