2005(5) Supreme 716
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Major General J.K. Bansal —Appellant
versus
Union of India and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5189 of 2005
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11258 of 2005)
Decided on 23-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nikhil Nayyar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, V.G. Pragasam and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
Defense Research Development Service Rules (DRDS), 1979 - Challenge to Transfer on the ground of mala fides - Vigilance Branch of the Army Head Quarters, had taken the decision to proceed against the appellant-. He was attached with an Army unit vide Head Quarters Western Command order dated 29.8.2003 - The decision to initiate General Court Martial proceedings was also taken by the Army authorities. The impugned transfer order dated 7.4.2005 has been passed by the Defence Research and Development Organization, Ministry of Defence. The appellant was considered for the post of Director, INMAS, but was not selected -Thus, the appellant could not have functioned in INMAS-. A post of Major General has been given to DRDE, Gwalior and it was considered in public interest to post the appellant on the said post-. The contention that the transfer order has been passed on account of malafide reasons rejected - Scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow than in cases of civilian employees - Challenge as to - Mala fide alleged - Appellant belongs to Army Medical Corps and is being shifted to non-medical organisation to accommodate a junior officer - Appellant was absorbed in DRDO of which both INMAS and DRDE are branches and terms and conditions provide for transfer - Respondents contend that Appellant was found suitable to conduct specialised training programmes for which he was trained abroad - Held, scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow than in cases of civilian employees - It is for higher authorities to decide when and where a member of armed force should be posted - Post of rank of Appellant has been given to DRDE and transfer order is passed by Ministry of Defence in public interest - Plea of mala fide has absolutely no substance and is wholly devoid of merit - Appeal dismissed.s[Paras 13 and 14]
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5.5.2005 of Delhi High Court by which Writ Petition (C) No. 7387 of 2005, filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 7.4.2005 by which he had been transferred to Defence Research and Development Establishment (for short ‘DRDE’), Gwalior, was dismissed.
3. The plea taken by the appellant in the writ petition filed by him before the High Court was that he belonged to Army Medical Corps and was being shifted to a non-medical organization, which had only one officer of Army Medical Corps and that too of the rank of Major or Lt. Colonel. The transfer order was malafide as it had been passed on account of his success in an earlier writ petition filed by him being W.P. (C) No. 6131 of 2003, whereunder he had sought quashing of certain proceedings initiated against him and on account of the decision in the writ petition the respondents ultimately promoted him to the rank of Major General. It was further pleaded that he had been transferred to Gwalior in order to accommodate one Brigadier R.P. Tripathi to the post of Director in the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (for short ‘INMAS’). The writ petition was contested by the respondents on the grounds, inter alia, that the appellant was absorbed in the Defence Research and Development Organization (for short ‘DRDO’), which is engaged in carrying out scientific and technical research and development work of various projects related to defence forces and of which both INMAS and DRDE are branches and their terms and conditions of services are governed by Ministry of Defence Letter dated 23.11.1979, which provides for transfer of officers to any place in the country or outside. Both the INMAS and DRDE, Gwalior, are system based laboratories engaged in Research and Development activities in bio-medical fields and it had been decided to conduct training programmes of NBC Defence to train military, para-military staff and AMC doctors at DRDE, Gwalior, under the present conditions. The appellant was found suitable for undertaking the new project in the field for which he was trained abroad at public expense. The allegations regarding malafide action of the respondents or that he had been transferred to Gwalior in order to accommodate Brigadier R.P. Tripathi or someone else at INMAS was denied. After a thorough consideration of the affidavits filed by the parties and the material on record the High Court found that there was no substance in the appellant’s case and accordingly dismissed his writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly confined his challenge to the transfer order dated 7.4.2005 on the ground of malafide. It was submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record, but on the basis of a complaint he was attached for disciplinary action with Head Quarter Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt. on 3.9.2003. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6131 of 2003 before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued a charge sheet for initiating General Court Martial proceedings against him. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 18.5.2004 and the order dated 3.9.2003 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant was quashed. The proceedings initiated against the appellant for holding General Court Martial were also quashed and a direction was issued to the respondents to declassify the result of the Promotion Board held on 4.6.2003. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court the respondents filed SLP (C) No. 11672 of 2004 before this Court, but the same was dismissed on 30.3.2005. The post of Director, INMAS had been advertised by DRDO on 20.1.2005, for which the appellant had also applied. He was called for interview on 22.4.2005 at R.A.C., Delhi. However, an order was issued by the respondents on 7.4.2005 whereby he was informed t
Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Abbas
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan & Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.