Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCMA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
GANESH DASS SINGH.
Civil Appeal No. 1358 of 1994 {Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12960 of 1993}
Decided on 25-2-1994
Transfer - Trade Union Activities - Judicial Review of Administrative Transfer
Fact of the Case:
The respondent challenged his transfer from FOD Jodhpur to FOD Udhampur, alleging mala fides and influence of his trade union activities on the transfer. The Tribunal quashed the transfer order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no material to justify interference with the transfer made for administrative reasons, especially since the Tribunal had rejected the respondent's assertion about the transfer being influenced by complaints regarding the functioning of the Depot. The Court held that the Tribunal's view was not justified based on the facts found and was not within the scope of permissible judicial review for administrative transfers.
Issues: Challenge of transfer on grounds of mala fides and influence of trade union activities, Permissible scope of judicial review for administrative transfers
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that mere transfer made by the competent authority for administrative reasons should not be interfered with unless there is material to justify interference. The Court also clarified that the influence of trade union activities on the transfer was not within the permissible scope of judicial review.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and no costs were awarded. The appellant was directed to consider granting some reasonable time to the respondent to carry out the transfer order.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The respondent was posted at FOD Jodhpur from which he was transferred to the FOD Udhampur. He challenged his transfer on the ground of mala fides without indicating any particular individual against whom the mala fides were alleged, or impleading that person by name. The respondent also alleged that his superiors were annoyed on account of his trade union activities and the complaints made by him in that capacity about the functioning of the Depot. The Tribunal did not accept the respondents contention that the transfer was made on account of the complaints made by the respondent about the functioning of the Depot. However, the Tribunal appears to have been influenced by the respondents assertion that his trade union activities had influenced the transfer. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the transfer order had been made in colourable exercise of power. The transfer was accordingly quashed.
4. In our opinion, in the present case there is no material to justify interference with the mere order of transfer made by the competent authority for administrative reasons particularly when the Tribunal had rejected the respondents assertion that the transfer had been made on account of certain complaints he had made regarding the functioning of the Depot. We have no doubt that the view taken by the Tribunal is not justified on the facts found by it. It is also not within the scope of permissible judicial review in such matters relating to mere transfer made by the competent authority for administrative reasons.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.
6. The appellant may consider granting some reasonable time to the respondent to carry out the transfer order.
For Citation: 1995 Supp(3) SCC 214
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
