1994 (8) TMI 315 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's transfer from CBI to BSF.
2. Allegations of malafides in the transfer.
3. Compliance with Tenure Rules for IPS officers.
4. Impact of the transfer on public interest and the appellant's service career.
5. Procedural propriety of the Central Administrative Tribunal's handling of the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appellant's Transfer from CBI to BSF:
The appellant, an IPS officer, was transferred from his post as Joint Director in the CBI to an equivalent post in the BSF. The transfer did not have any adverse consequence on his service career or prospects. The appellant was later promoted within the BSF, indicating no setback in his career. The court noted that transfers within central police organizations are a common administrative practice and are generally not subject to judicial review unless specific grounds such as malafides or violation of guidelines are proven.

2. Allegations of Malafides in the Transfer:
The appellant alleged that his transfer was motivated by malafides, primarily attributing it to the then Prime Minister's annoyance with the appellant's investigation into sensitive matters, including phone tapping and the St. Kitts affair. The court examined the affidavits and found no substantial evidence to support the allegations of malafides. The appellant's successor in the CBI was not alleged to be less competent or pliable, which would have indicated an ulterior motive to scuttle the investigation. The court emphasized that strong unimpeachable evidence is required to prove malafides, which was lacking in this case.

3. Compliance with Tenure Rules for IPS Officers:
The appellant contended that his transfer violated the Tenure Rules, which ordinarily provide a five-year tenure for IPS officers in central police organizations. The court clarified that the rules do not mandate the entire tenure to be served in a single organization. The appellant's transfer to another central police organization (BSF) was within the permissible framework of the Tenure Rules. The court found no infraction of the rules, as the appellant's total tenure in central police organizations was maintained.

4. Impact of the Transfer on Public Interest and the Appellant's Service Career:
The court considered whether the transfer was prejudicial to public interest. It concluded that the transfer was not avoidable and did not replace the appellant with an unsuitable officer. The successor's competence was assumed, negating any claim of prejudice to public interest. The appellant's service career was unaffected, as evidenced by his subsequent promotions. The court noted that judicial review of transfers should be limited to cases where there is clear evidence of malafides or violation of guidelines, neither of which was present here.

5. Procedural Propriety of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Handling of the Case:
The court criticized the Central Administrative Tribunal for dismissing the appellant's application without requiring counter-affidavits from the respondents. The Tribunal's approach was deemed unusual and incorrect, as allegations of malafides should have been properly examined. The court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles, rather than the Tribunal's flawed reasoning.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of malafides or violation of Tenure Rules in the appellant's transfer from CBI to BSF. The transfer was deemed a routine administrative action with no adverse impact on the appellant's career or public interest. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of administrative transfers and the need for strong evidence to substantiate claims of malafides. The procedural shortcomings of the Central Administrative Tribunal were noted but did not alter the final outcome.