2015 (7) TMI 484 - HC - Income Tax

Order of transfer challenged - second respondent working as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in the city of Chennai Challenging the order of transfer - Held that - The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the impugned order of transfer was penal in nature, is wholly unsustainable. The order of transfer was a general order covering 20 officers. It did not disclose any reason. Merely because the Department mentioned in the reply statement that there were complaints, the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding that the second respondent was penalised without an enquiry. We do not even know how the second respondent could be taken to be aggrieved, when the transfer was within the city of Chennai. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the transfer order, is completely contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. However, it is now stated by Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned standing counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent now stands transferred to Patna, by an order dated 15.06.2015.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of transfer by Union of India before Central Administrative Tribunal.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by the Union of India against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the transfer of the second respondent, who was working as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in Chennai. The Ministry had transferred about 20 officers, including the second respondent, by a general order dated 03.11.2014. The Tribunal allowed the second respondent's application challenging the transfer, leading to the Union of India filing the writ petition.

The transfer order was a general one affecting multiple officers, including the second respondent, moving him from the Exemptions Section to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within Chennai. The order did not provide any specific reasons for the transfer other than administrative reasons. Despite this, the Union mentioned complaints in their reply statement, which the second respondent used to argue that the transfer was penal in nature. The Tribunal also found that the officer passing the transfer order lacked jurisdiction.

The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the transfer was penal, emphasizing that it was a general order affecting several officers and did not specify any reasons. The Court highlighted that the transfer was within the same city, so the second respondent could not be considered aggrieved. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the transfer order was against established legal principles.

Subsequently, it was mentioned that the second respondent had been transferred to Patna, rendering the current petition moot. The Court closed the writ petition, noting the second respondent's new transfer. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.