Transfer of employees should not be used as a form of punishment and should be based on administrative exigency, not on pressure from employee unions.

Chattopadhyay, J.

1. BOTH the appeals relate to identical facts and involve common points of law. Therefore, the said appeals were heard analogously and we also dispose of the same by this common judgment.

2. THE relevant facts leading to these appeals are briefly stated hereinafter. The writ petitioners are the employees under the appellant. The disciplinary authority issued charge sheets to the writ petitioners while they were posted at West Bengal Regional Office of the appellant at Kolkata as Senior Development Assistant on the allegation that they had participated in writing indecent and disparaging remarks against one lady employee on the wall of the office building of the said regional office of the appellant at Kolkata.

3. AFTER issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet enquiry proceeding was conducted and the enquiry officer after the conclusion of the enquiry submitted his report before the disciplinary authority. In the said enquiry report, the enquiry officer specifically observed that the charge of abetting the act of writing on the wall was not established. The disciplinary authority however did not accept the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officer.

4. ON or about May 21, 1994 the writ petitioners were served with further show cause notices together with the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the findings of the disciplinary authority. In the said show cause notice the writ petitioners were also informed about the proposed punishment of deduction of pay by three stages for a period of one year having effect of postponing the date of future increments. It is the case of the writ petitioners that no opportunity was granted by the disciplinary authority for offering explanations on the points of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer or in relation to the proposed punishment. The writ petitioners were thereafter served with the transfer order dated May 23, 1994 whereby the said writ petitioners were transferred to Bhubaneswar Regional Office of the appellant. The writ petitioners submitted representation alleging that the aforesaid order of transfer was issued with mala fide intention by way of punishment. The said representation was however rejected by the disciplinary authority.

5. CHALLENGING the disciplinary proceedings as well as the transfer order dated 23 May, 1994 writ petitions were filed whereupon an interim order of stay was granted by this Court. The appellant herein preferred appeal against the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned single Judge and the said interim order of stay of transfer order was thereafter vacated by the Appeal Court, The writ petitioners thereafter joined at Bhubaneswar. It has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that in view of their stay outside Kolkata, it was not possible to keep proper track in respect of the Court cases and there was lack of communication with the lawyer engaged by the writ petitioners.

6. THE writ petitioners were very much aggrieved by the order of transfer to Bhubaneswar and the issue was ultimately taken up by the NABARD Employees Association, Bhubaneswar. THE said association also submitted representation requesting the competent authority of the appellant to repatriate the writ petitioners to their earlier place of posting at Kolkata. THE aforesaid representation of the association as well as the representations submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners in this regard were however rejected by the competent authority of the appellant as a result whereof the writ petitioners were compelled to stay out of home station at Bhubaneswar. The relationship of the writ petitioners with the lady colleagues during their long stay at Bhubaneswar was cordial and dignified. According to the writ petitioners a powerful section amongst the staff and the management are hostile and inimical towards the said writ petitioners and in view of their influence management of the appellant turned down the aforesaid proposal for