The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding discipline and compliance with transfer orders in the context of uniformed forces, as well as the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

ORDER :

The Union of India has come up in the appeals aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High court on 3.9.2012 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by respondent-Pradeep Sharma. Respondent was appointed as Intelligence Officer, Grade II, in the Intelligence Bureau, Department of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 13.6.1986. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade I, on 15.1.1996 and was holding the said Grade. Thereafter, he was posted from one office to another office at Jammu itself, vide order dated 28th August 1998, bearing No.95. He was transferred, from ACIO-I(G) in Int-Field unit of SIB, Jammu to NCO-Central Intelligence Branch of SIB, and was relieved of his duties on 1.9.1998. He was required to join the office to which he had been transferred. Admittedly, he did not join in the office of NCO, Central Intelligence Branch of SIB, purportedly on the ground that the Assistant Director, who was, at the time, the head of the said office, was inimically disposed against the appellant, and had threatened him with the removal from service in case he joined in the said office.

2. Since the respondent did not join pursuant to the order dated 28.8.1998, a memo was issued to him on 8.9.1998, cautioning him that the period of absence would be liable to be treated as one of unauthorized absence, since he was at fault in not complying with the order of transfer dated 28.08.1998. Thereafter, the respondent was transferred from Jammu to Amritsar, vide Transfer Order dated 15.10.1998. There again, he did not join. He had failed to join in the office of NCO Central Intelligence branch pursuant to the order dated 28.8.1998, so also he did not join at Amritsar and did not comply with the later order of transfer as well.

3. Ultimately, due to failure on the respondents' part in complying with the order of transfer dated 15.10.1998 from Jammu to Amritsar, the office memo dated 29.10.1998 was issued to the respondent, directing him to report to the duty at Amritsar, failing which action would be initiated against him as per rules. Another memo was issued on 12.11.1998; the last opportunity was granted to resume the duty by 20.11.1998, otherwise the departmental enquiry would be initiated in case of his failure to join his duties, in compliance with the order of transfer.

4. The respondent did not comply with the said memo as well; and, did not join at Amritsar. As such, after four months, on 15.03.1999, a charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 14 of Classification, Control & Appeal Rules, 1965 (in short 'the CCS (CCA) Rules'). Respondent filed his statement of defence on 22.03.1999; he denied the charges levelled against him on 7.6.1999. Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the respondent.

5. The respondent questioned the initiation of departmental enquiry by way of filing W.P., bearing No. 355 of 2000, in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and prayed to quash the departmental enquiry that had been initiated against him. The High Court, in the said writ petition, passed an order on 13.3.2000 to release his salary within one month and to finalize the departmental enquiry within a period of four months. The Union of India preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the said decision passed by the Single Bench; in the meantime, as per the order passed by the High Court, the respondent submitted his joining at Jammu on 3.4.2000, not at Amritsar. Prior to that, he did not submit his joining. Even during the course of the enquiry, he had not joined his duties at Amritsar.

6. On 5th April, 2004, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir disposed of the appeal. The Division Bench directed the Authorities to take the final decision, on the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, in accordance with law; and, the Interim order dated 8.5.2000 was vacated. Thereafter, the Intelligence Bureau, Ministr