SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 814

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. H. KANIA C.J.I. AND G. N. RAY, J.
M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS, Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4090 of 1991
Decided on 11-11-1992.

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, E.C.Vidya Sagar, G.RAMASVAMY, K.K.VENUGOPAL, L.R.SINGH, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, P.P.MUTHANNA, S.VALIA, Shahid Rizvi, SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

Headnote:

Transferring and posting him as Secretary – Appeal is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in Original Application – Appellant, made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, for quashing the order transferring and posting him as Secretary, High Power Committee for development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore as contained in Annexure A-4 to the application made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and for a direction to allow the applicant, to continue as the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka – Aforesaid order of transferring and posting the appellant as Secretary, High Power Committee was challenged mainly on two grounds, namely, that such order was not passed bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed mala fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with the appellant on account of his unfavourable attitude and resistance to some of the proposals of the Chief Minister in the matter of posting of senior officers of the State to different key posts – Held, After considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears to us that the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation warranting a finding that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide and/ or for an oblique purpose in order to punish the appellant and/or to humiliate him – pleadings of the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal only indicate that some of his suggestions in the matter of posting of senior bureaucratic officers of the State had not been accepted by the present Chief Minister of the State – Such facts alone do not constitute any foundation for a finding that because the appellant was not agreeable to oblige the Chief Minister by accepting all his suggestions and putting up notes to that effect, he had incurred the displeasure of the Chief Minister and the impugned orders had been passed not on administrative exigencies but only to malign the appellant and to humiliate him – It may not always be possible to demonstrate malice in fact with full and elaborate particulars and it may be permissible in an appropriate case to draw reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded and established – But such inference must be based on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain in the realm of insinuation, surmise or conjecture – In the instant case, Court are unable to find that there are sufficient materials from which a reasonable inference of malice in fact for passing the impugned order of transfer can be drawn – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—This appeal is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated February 7, 1991 passed in Original Application No. 11 of 1991. The appellant, Shri M. Sankaranarayanan, made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, for quashing the order dated January 4, 1991 transferring and posting him as Secretary, High Power Committee for development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as High Power Committee) as contained in Annexure A-4 to the application made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and for a direction to allow the applicant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, to continue as the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The aforesaid order of transferring and posting the appellant as Secretary, High Power Committee was challenged mainly on two grounds, namely, that such order was not passed bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed mala fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with the appellant on account of his unfavourable attitude and resistance to some of the proposals of the Chief Minister in the matter of posting of senior officers of the State to different key posts. It was also contended that his transfer order is vitiated because of the non-compliance of the procedural formalities for a valid transfer of the appellant to the said post of Secretary, High Power Committee inasmuch as there was no declaration under Rule 9(l) of IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary and in the absence of such declaration the transfer of the appellant from the post of Chief Secretary to the Secretary, High Power Committee, was illegal and void.

2. To appreciate the relevant contentions made by the appellant and the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal and also before this Court at the hearing of the appeal, the backdrop of the events resulting in the impugned order of transfer and posting of the appellant and consequential challenge of such order by the appellant, requires to be indicated in short.

3. The appellant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (Karnataka Cadre) in 1957 and on May 5, 1990 he was holding the post of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka. By Notification dated May 5, 1990, he was appointed as Chief .Secretary to the Karnataka Government until further orders. In the State of Karnataka, there was. originally one post of Chief Secretary to the Government. By an order dated October 17, 1980, an ex-cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary was created with a declaration under R. 9(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules that the status and responsibilities of the said post were equivalent to the cadre post of Chief Secretary. The post of Additional Chief-Secretary was thereafter en-cadred by Notification dated January 30, 1987 with the same pay as of the post of Chief Secretary. The post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was created by the State Government of Karnataka in 1989 with the designation Chairman, Hyderabad, Karnataka Development Board by order dated September 27, 1989. The said post was declared equivalent to the status and responsibilities to the cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary under R. 9 of IAS (Pay) Rules. The posts of Chief Secretary, Secretary, High Power Committee and Additional Chief Secretary carry equal pay. On January 3, 1991, the Cabinet Government of Karnataka took a decision to the effect that a change of the Chief Secretary should be effected. Pursuant to such cabinet decision, the Chief Minister, on January 4, 1991, had taken the following three decisions and passed consequential orders namely (i) declaring that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of Chief Secretary of the Government, (ii) transferring the appellant, Sh













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top