2008 (12) TMI 733 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court while quashing an order of transfer passed against the appellant was correct in directing that he would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed till the date he again joined his duties at the original place?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's direction that the appellant would not be entitled to salary for the period after the modified transfer order.
2. Legality of the transfer order based on an anonymous complaint.
3. Justification for invoking the principle of 'no work no pay'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Direction on Salary Entitlement:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in directing that the appellant would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed until he rejoined his duties at the original place. The appellant contended that the High Court, despite finding the transfer order mala fide and an abuse of the process, could not have directed that he be not paid his salary. The Union of India argued that since the appellant did not join his post at Ahmedabad despite no stay order by the Tribunal, the principle of 'no work no pay' was correctly invoked by the High Court.

2. Legality of the Transfer Order Based on an Anonymous Complaint:
The appellant, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was transferred from Bhopal to Shillong based on an anonymous complaint alleging caste-bias. An enquiry conducted by the Directorate of Vigilance found the allegations untrue but recommended his transfer. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially directed the respondents to consider the appellant's representation, which was subsequently rejected. The Tribunal upheld the transfer, citing administrative exigencies and the appellant's all-India transfer liability. The High Court, however, quashed the transfer order, stating that it was based on an anonymous complaint found to be incorrect and that transferring the appellant on such grounds violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(1), and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

3. Justification for Invoking the Principle of 'No Work No Pay':
The Supreme Court noted that while an order of transfer is an administrative order and should generally not be interfered with, it can be set aside if proven to be mala fide. The Court found that the transfer order was based on irrelevant grounds (anonymous complaint) and thus suffered from malice in law. The Court also recognized that the appellant's failure to join the post at Ahmedabad might constitute misconduct. However, the Court emphasized that the superior courts must strike a balance and consider the conduct of both parties. The respondents did not obtain leave from the Tribunal before passing the second transfer order and acted on the premise that the appellant had joined his post at Shillong, which was incorrect.

The Supreme Court, referencing the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, highlighted that in cases of ex facie injustice, courts might issue directions in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. The Court concluded that the appellant should be treated as on leave for the period in question and directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order invoking the leave rules. The High Court's judgment was modified to this extent, and the appeal was allowed partially, with the respondents bearing the appellant's counsel's fee.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment addressed the issues of the legality of the transfer order, the High Court's direction on salary entitlement, and the application of the 'no work no pay' principle. The Court found the transfer order to be mala fide and based on irrelevant grounds, thus quashing it. The appellant was directed to be treated as on leave for the disputed period, balancing the interests of both parties.

← Previous Next →