Shekhar Srivastava v. Union of India

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 7958/2016

3. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟) by which OA No.2850/2016 filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge his transfer order dated 5.8.2016 whereby he was transferred from Delhi to Surendernagar, Gujarat, was dismissed by the Tribunal in liminie. 2016:DHC:6410-DB

4. As per the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Direct Recruit Statistical Assistant, Group C, on being selected by the Staff Selection Commission in the year. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted from time to time and lastly was promoted as Senior Statistical Officer. The petitioner is at present working as a Senior Statistical Officer in the Office of Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide office order dated 5.8.2016 he has been transferred from Delhi to Surendernagar, Gujarat citing as „Administrative Grounds‟. The petitioner challenged the transfer order dated 5.8.2016 before the Tribunal alleging mala fides on the part of the respondents, however, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in liminie.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has failed to take into account the allegations of mala fides urged by the petitioner in paragraphs 4.16 to

4.19 of the OA filed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner had unearthed a scam, this has led to the passing of the transfer order by the respondents. It is contended that the order of transfer contains the reason for transfer of the petitioner form Delhi to Surendernagar, Gujarat, as „on administrative grounds‟, which is stigmatic.

6. Mr.Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/UOI, enters appearance on an advance copy and submits that the transfer order dated 5.8.2016 pertains to the transfer of 42 officers. Counsel further submits that the officers mentioned at Serial Nos.[1] to 4 in the said transfer order have been transferred on administrative grounds while the other officers have been transferred at their request. Counsel further submits that the order of transfer is neither stigmatic nor on account of mala fide reasons. It is further contended that the petitioner has remained in Delhi continuously for 35 years and there is no ground for the petitioner to complain.

7. Mr.Singh further contends that transfer is an incident of service and any officer, who is transferred where, is a matter, which is upon the appropriate authority to decide. In support of this contention, Mr.Singh has relied upon Gujarat Electricity Board And Ors. v. Atmaram Sunjomal Poshani, reported at 1989 (3) SLJ 68 (SC).

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. We may notice that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena, v. Union of India & Others, reported at 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890, more particularly para 6, which reads as under:

9. We endorse the view taken by the Tribunal. The petitioner must join his place of posting. Another aspect, which cannot be overlooked, is that the petitioner has been posted in Delhi continuously for 35 years.

10. We have, at this stage, asked the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner is willing to join his place of posting, to which counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, submits that the petitioner will join his place of posting within one week from today.

11. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing. The Tribunal shall examine the ground of mala fide, which has been urged by the petitioner, if any. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 17.10.2016. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit in response to the petition. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

12. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in view of above. CM APPL.NOS. 33003/2016 & 33005/2016