Union of India and Ors. v. S.L. Abbas

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted. Respondent is a Garden Curator in the Office of the Scientist-SE, Botanical Survey of India, Eastern Circle, Shillong. By order dated January 29, 1991 he was transferred from Shillong to Pauri (Uttar Pradesh) by the Senior Administrative D Officer, office of the Director, Botanical Survey of India, (Ministry of Environ­ ment and Forests, Government of India). As many as 19 persons were transferred under the said order.including the respondent. The respondent has been working in Shillong since the year 1979. The respondent approached the Gauhati Bench of the Central Administra- ' · tive Tribunal (Original Application No. 33 of 1991) questioning the order of his transfer. He submitted that his wife is also employed at Shillong in and office of the Central Government, that his children are studying at Shillong and further that he himself had suffered back-bone fracture injuries some time ago. He submitted that the guidelines contained in Governmentoflndia O.M. dated 3.4.1986 have not been kept in mind while ordering his transfer. He complained that some other officials who have been serving at Shillong for a longer period, have been allowed to continue at Shillong. He attributed 'mischief to his Controller Officer, Shri B.M. Wadhwa (third respondent in the O.M.). In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they submitted that the G transfer was ordered on administrative grounds and is imexceptionabl~. The learned Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the order of transfer on the following reasoning: the decisions of the Courts establish that the power of transfer is not an unfettered one but is circumscribed .by various circulars/guidelines contained in the administrative instructions issued H A by the Government. An order of transfer can be interdicted if it i,s discriminatory. The said principles are applicable to th.e case of the respondent. Further "in the matter of considering transfer of an individual officer, the Office Memorandum dated 3.4.1986, educatio'nal dislocation of the children and health ground, if all . i present, deserve special consideration not to pass the order." Having said so the learned Member recordea'the following finding: "In view of the above facts and B circumstances and findings it is held unhesitatingly that the transfer order No. BSI. 80/5/80-Estt. dated 29 .1.1991 in respect of applicant S.L.Abbas was malafide and liable to be quashed." The Union of India has preferred this appeal. An orderof transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule c 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Govenment which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundemental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another''. That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by ma/a fides on the part of the authority making D the order,-though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief' to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at shillong, his children are studying there and also ·because his health had suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain E executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature ot.guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Who should be tr.ansferred where, is a matter for the approptiate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in vio~ation F of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While orderi~g the tiansfer, there is no ·doubt, the authority must keep in mine!. the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his trimsfer, the appropriate authority must consider the ;sbne having regard to the exigencies of administration., The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline G howev~r does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right: ' ' The jurisdication Qf the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High .Court un~er Article 226 oft!le constitution of India in 8 service matters. This is evident troma perusal of Article 323-A of the-Constitution. The constraints an~ norms which the High Court observes while exercising the -- _, ... U.0.1. v. S.L. ABBAS !REDDY, J.) 431 . , said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the roore surpfising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus. aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdication.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appel­ late Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of tran_sfer. It cannot substitute its ownjudgmentforthat of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Offcer (competent authority). Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [1992] l S.C.C.306 rendered by a c Bench of which one of us (J.S. Verma,J.) was a member. On a perusal of the judgment, we do not think it supports the respondent in any manner. It is observed therein: "There can be no doubt that ordinarily and a& jar as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the D same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may b.e unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to· face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other amployees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appoint~ ment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subcifdinating the need of the couple living together at one statio.n,"they cabnot as-0f right claim to be r:elieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that-the'spouses thereby would-be posted at different places ............. ,: ........ , ......................... .No doubt - H 432 the guidelines requires the two spouses tobe posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administra­ . tion and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees." · (emphasis added) c The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondents' contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the · administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, mu.ch less can it be D cp.aracterist:d.flS malafide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passedmalafide or where itis made i,l).Ni"olation of the statutory provisions. For the above reasons, the appeal is .allowed. The judgment under appeal is set E aside. There shall be no order as to costs. N.P.V. Appeal allowed.