9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Government's right to transfer a confirmed permanent Government servant outside his cadre against his will. 2. Validity of the transfer order dated 23-11-1970. 3. Allegation of mala fide intention behind the transfer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Government's Right to Transfer a Confirmed Permanent Government Servant Outside His Cadre Against His Will The main grievance is whether the Government has the jurisdiction to transfer a confirmed permanent Government servant outside his cadre against his will. The petitioner argued that the Directorate of Extension and the Regional Station are two separate cadres, and thus, the respondents have no authority to transfer him outside his cadre. The respondents conceded that the Directorate of Extension and the Regional Station are different cadres but maintained that they still had the jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner. Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 15(a) was cited by the respondents to justify the transfer, which states that "The President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another." However, the court noted that F.R. 15 does not explicitly authorize the transfer of a government servant from one cadre to another. The court referred to F.R. 14(B), which allows the President to transfer a government servant to another permanent post within the same cadre, indicating that F.R. 15 should also be interpreted as referring to transfers within the same cadre. The court cited previous judgments, including S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India and Dr. Prem Beharilal Saxena v. Director of Medical and Health Services, to support the interpretation that F.R. 15 does not authorize transfers outside the cadre. The court concluded that the Government does not have the authority to transfer a government servant outside his cadre against his will. 2. Validity of the Transfer Order Dated 23-11-1970 The impugned transfer order dated 23-11-1970 directed the petitioner to move from the Directorate of Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, to the Regional Station on Forage Production, Dhamrod, District Surat. The petitioner argued that this transfer was unauthorized as it was outside his cadre and against his will. The court examined the Fundamental Rules and various government orders and concluded that the transfer was unauthorized and unsupported by any legal provision. The court noted that if the transfer were valid, the petitioner would be entitled to deputation allowance as per government orders, which was not the case here. The court found that the transfer order lacked legal backing and was therefore unsustainable. 3. Allegation of Mala Fide Intention Behind the Transfer The petitioner also alleged that his transfer was due to victimization and because he was an office bearer (Branch Secretary) of the Association of Attached and Subordinate Offices. The respondents denied these allegations, stating that the transfer was made in the exigency of service and without any mala fide intention. The court noted that while the petitioner had made a bare allegation of mala fide intention, he had not provided any substantial evidence to support this claim. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, which emphasized the need for specific details to substantiate claims of mala fide intention. As the petitioner failed to provide such details, the court rejected the allegation of mala fide intention. Conclusion The court concluded that the impugned transfer order dated 23-11-1970 was unauthorized and without any legal support. The court issued a writ of certiorari, quashing the transfer order. The petition was allowed with costs, and counsel's fee was set at Rs. 200/-.
|
