9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appealability of an order of transfer by a Government servant under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether an order of transfer made by an authority other than the Government itself is appealable before the Government under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The High Court had differing opinions on the appealability of such orders, with one judge allowing appeals against transfer orders and another dismissing such appeals. The Division Bench upheld the view that no appeal lies to the State Government against a transfer order made by a subordinate authority. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, found no reason to interfere with the Division Bench's decision. The key consideration was whether an order of transfer varied to the disadvantage of a Government servant's conditions of service, attracting the right of appeal under Rule 19. The judgment delves into the provisions of Rule 19, which entitles members of the Services to appeal against orders that deny or vary their pay, allowances, pension, or other conditions of service to their disadvantage. It also discusses the nature of penalties that can be imposed on Government servants under Rule 8, specifying that appeals are provided against orders imposing such penalties. The Court emphasized that if an order of transfer does not amount to a penalty or any other order falling within Rule 19, it is not appealable. The judgment clarifies that transfer is an incident of service and does not result in any alteration to the conditions of service to the Government servant's disadvantage. Furthermore, the judgment distinguishes between an abusive exercise of the power of transfer and a transfer made in the exigencies of service. It references a decision of the Bombay High Court regarding mala fide transfers, emphasizing that transfers must be made in public interest and not for collateral purposes or oblique motives to be considered appealable. The Court highlights that transfer is an implied condition of service and that the appointing authority has discretion in this matter, which should be exercised honestly and reasonably in public interest. The judgment also addresses the impact of frequent, unscheduled, and unreasonable transfers on Government servants and their families, stressing the need for a reasonable and fair transfer policy that applies equally to everyone. It acknowledges the historical practice of restricting the period of posting for superior or more responsible posts to prevent vested interests. The Court emphasizes the importance of considering the welfare of Class III and Class IV employees in the transfer policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the Division Bench's decision, and granted the petitioner four months to join the new place of posting.
|
