IMPORTANT POINT
Unless order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, such order cannot be lightly interfered with.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Transfer-Respondent working as District Supply Officer came to be transferred by Office Order by the Secretary-Writ challenging order on ground of political pressure and influence in order to help another to be posted in place of respondent-High Court directed respondents to approach Chief Secretary with representation besides consequential direction to Chief Secretary and issued omnibus and general directions placing embargo on right of competent authority to pass orders of transfers-Appeal-Unless order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of statutory provisions or passed by authority not competent to do so, transfer order could not be lightly interfered with-High Court erred in issuing generalised directions in disputed facts and impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. (Paras 7 and 8)
       No such generalised directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties. (Para 9)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points:- Transfer is an inherent incident and essential condition of service; interference requires mala fide, statutory violation, or lack of competence in the transferring authority. (!) (!) - Courts should eschew treating transfer decisions as appellate reviews and should not issue broad, generalized directions that encroach upon executive authority; such directions undermine separation of powers. (!) (!) (!) - High Court’s omnibus directions directing approach to Chief Secretary and temporary embargo on competent authorities’ transfer powers were set aside; appeals allowed with directions to adhere to established rules and rights. (!) (!) - A challenge to transfers should be grounded in concrete materials of mala fides or statutory violations; routine or administrative guidelines cannot create legally Enforceable rights to override competent transfer decisions. (!) (!) - A competent authority retains power to transfer in public interest and exigencies of service; administrative guidelines may guide redress but do not bar transfers. (!) (!) - A court should avoid generalizing across cases and must not substitute its own decision for that of the state authorities in transfers. (!) (!) - If in writ petitions, disputed facts exist, courts should refrain from broad generalizations about transfers and promotions; rights to seek relief remain under law and established procedures. (!) (!) - Final holding: judgments of the High Court were set aside; appeals allowed with emphasis on adherence to statutory provisions and not broad interfering directions. (!)

How to determine whether a government transfer order should be interfered with by courts in light of alleged mala fides or violation of statutory provisions?What is the scope and appropriateness of court interventions in government transfers and postings, and whether general directives by courts encroached on executive power?What are the rights of government servants to challenge transfers or postings, and how should such challenges be governed by statutory provisions and established guidelines?

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-Since the challenge in these appeals relates to identical orders, they are dealt with together. In Civil Appeal No. 408/2004, one Zila Desh Bhakta Society, Meerut (U.P.), has filed an application for intervention. In our view, the same does not deserve to be countenanced having regard to the nature of the rights and grievance involved for consideration in these appeals. Hence, the application is rejected.

Civil Appeal No. 408 of 2004 :

2. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. and others, who were arrayed as respondents before the High Court, against the order dated 3.4.2000 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2893 of 2000, whereunder the writ petition filed challenging the transfer of the respondent came to be disposed of with certain directions - general and far-reaching in nature - affecting the rights of the Government and various officers of the Government in the administrative hierarchy to pass orders of transfer of Officers/Servants serving under them. The salient and necessary facts relating to the appeal are that the respondent, who was working as District Supply Officer, Meerut, came to be transferred by an Office Order dated 8.12.1999 by the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government, to Head Office - Office of Food Commissioner at Lucknow. This Office Order involved the posting of not only a substitute to the respondent at Meerut but the transfer of another officer as well. The grievance with which the said transfer order came to be challenged before the High Court was that though by an order dated 10.4.1999 the respondent, who was serving at Unnao, was transferred to Meerut and joined as such, he came to be transferred again by the impugned order due to political pressure and influence, particularly that of the local MLA by name Atul Kumar, to the Head Office at Lucknow in order to help another to be posted in his place. It seems to have been urged further that the District Magistrate of Meerut has commended the services of the respondent in dealing with the public and despite such views expressed, the transfer order came to be made for extraneous purposes, at the behest of and in order to oblige the local MLA. Carried away by the copies of the letters filed as Annexures before the High Court, allegedly written by the MLA, the Court, while issuing notice, seems to have granted interim orders of stay as well. The respondents filed counter affidavit disputing the claims made in the Writ Petition as to the alleged motives and baseless accusations relating thereto, and as found noticed in the order under challenge, it was categorically asserted for the respondents before the High Court that the so-called letter said to have been written by the MLA is a fake one and it was neither written by him nor was it available in the files. That apart, it was also, among other things, contended that the performance of the respondent in the previous stations as well came under a cloud and as a matter of fact, he was suspended on 10.2.1997 for alleged serious irregularities and misconduct while he was District Supply Officer at Hamirpur and Gonda. Though, subsequently reinstated on 11.7.1997 and departmental proceedings instituted were pending, once again he was said to have been suspended on 15.12.1997 for irregularities committed and reinstated on 20.3.1999, subject to the condition that the departmental proceedings pending against him will continue and as a matter of fact, two departmental proceedings were said to be pending against him. The respondent (Writ Petitioner before the High Court) himself is said to be the real brother of an MLA, by name Shri Ram Pal Verma, and through him and another MLA he was said to be bringing a lot of pressure to bear on the authorities, at every stage to get favourable treatment. In the light of the above and the further claim made that the criminal proceedings have also been sanctioned against him, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 359

IMPORTANT POINTUnless order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, such order cannot be lightly interfered with.

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, such order cannot be lightly interfered with.