The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer was not punitive, and the disciplinary proceedings should continue without being influenced by the Tribunal's directions.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The original applicant in Original Application No. 210/558/2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short), by instituting this writ petition dated 22nd February 2019 takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31st January 2019 of the Tribunal dismissing such original application with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the respondents within a month. The Tribunal also directed the respondents to take further action as per observations contained in paragraph no. 4(1) (v) and (vi) of such judgment.

2. Challenge in the original application was laid by the petitioner to an order of transfer dated 31st March 2016 by which he was transferred from the Passport Office, Thane to the Passport Office, Bhopal as well as an order dated 1st July 2016 whereby his representation dated 25th April 2016 questioning the order of transfer stood rejected.

3. At the material time, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Passport Officer and posted at the Passport Office, Thane. According to the petitioner, he and other employees faced various problems with regard to TA/DA while sent on deputation; hence, he along with 28 others preferred a joint complaint dated 28th March 2016 complaining of non-release of TA/DA as per rules as well as on other issues. Since the petitioner was the first signatory, he had been singled out for punishment and within three days of such representation, the order dated 31st March 2016 was issued whereby he was posted, on transfer, to the Passport Office at Bhopal.

4. The only ground for challenging the order of transfer dated 31st March 2016 was that the same had been issued as a measure of punishment and, therefore, such order of transfer was in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 3182 [Rhone-Poulenc (India) vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] as well as decisions of the Ernakulam Bench and Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal duly noted the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as by the respondents and was of the opinion that the impugned transfer of the petitioner was justified on administrative grounds as well as in public interest; that rejection of the petitioner’s representation did not suffer from any infirmity or flaw; that the petitioner did not have any serious medical ground which could have qualified him for special sympathetic consideration of his case for serious illness covered under paragraph 2(v) of the Transfer Policy dated 30th March 2015 for Central Passport Organization officers/officials dated 30th March 2015; and that there was no unfairness or unreasonableness in ordering his transfer. After concluding as above, the Tribunal in sub-paragraphs (v) and (vi) of paragraph 4(1) recorded as follows:

“4(1). Based on our careful consideration of rival claims of the parties to the OA as analyzed in the foregoing paragraphs, we sum up our overall conclusions as under:

(i) ***

(ii) ***

(iii) ***

(iv) ***

(v) on the part of the applicant, there were repeated instances of shirking of the duty and persistent hostile attitude towards the respondents. He is a negatively oriented person and compulsive complainant, seems suffering from unfounded imaginary and exaggerated sense of victimhood. He has displayed reckless behaviour with extreme disregard to discipline which amounts to violation of conduct rules and is unbecoming of a responsible civil servant.

(vi) the applicant has made unsustained contradictory false claims and has indulged in wasteful litigation because of which he must pay at least a part of the cost of litigation borne by the respondents i.e. Rs.5,000/-. For utter disregard to discipline and violation of conduct rules, he fully deserves appropriate discipline action by the respondents, including critical assessment of his fitness to continue him service as per the applicable service rules and laws.”

6. It is not in dispute that de