2017 (10) TMI 595 - HC - Income Tax

Stay the operation of Transfer Order of the Petitioner - Held that - In the instant case, the post of Commissioner of Income-Tax at Gorakhpur is lying vacant on account of the Petitioner seeking relaxation from the Transfer Policy in the last year and this year also. Therefore, sufficiently administrative exigency being made out and Petitioner s wife being very much present and available to take care of their daughter s education, we do not find any reason to invoke our extra-ordinary jurisdiction, which is for fair-play and equity, to stay the operation of Transfer Order , which prayer is rightly rejected by the Respondents-Authorities and the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to interim order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal on transfer order invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bias:
The petitioner sought to quash an interim order by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding a transfer order to Gorakhpur. The petitioner did not allege any mala fides, bias, vindictive, punitive, or discriminatory actions in the transfer order. The competency of the authority issuing the order was also not challenged.

2. Grounds for Seeking Stay:
The petitioner raised three grounds for staying the transfer order. First, citing his daughter's 10th standard board exams, which was not accepted as his wife, also a Group-A officer, could care for their daughter. Second, the petitioner claimed he had not completed 14 years of continuous stay in Mumbai as per guidelines. However, the court found he had almost completed the required period due to previous postings in Mumbai and Thane.

3. Administrative Exigency and Transfer Policy:
The transfer was deemed necessary due to administrative exigency as the post of Commissioner of Income Tax in Gorakhpur was vacant. The Placement Committee had the authority to transfer officers in public interest and organizational objectives, as per the Guidelines, 2010.

4. Spouse Ground and Supreme Court Precedent:
The petitioner's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment regarding retention on the spouse ground was dismissed. The court noted that the provision to post spouses at the same station was discretionary, and transfer could be made for administrative reasons, especially when the wife was available to care for their daughter's education.

5. Judicial Precedent and Dismissal of Writ Petition:
The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of children's education in transfer cases but concluded that administrative exigency justified the transfer in this case. The Writ Petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and the operation of the transfer order was not stayed.

6. Conclusion:
The court found no grounds to quash the interim order on the transfer, as the petitioner failed to establish mala fides, bias, or discrimination. The administrative exigency and compliance with the transfer policy were crucial factors in upholding the transfer order. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.