The court emphasized the need for proper justification in repatriation requests and clarified that speculative fears of disciplinary actions must be addressed through appropriate legal processes.

JUDGMENT : 

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated July 30, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA 352 of 2024.

2. Being aggrieved by an order of transfer, writ petitioner assailed the same before the Tribunal. Writ petitioner is an employee of the Finance department of the State of West Bengal and presently on deputation with Bally Municipality.

3. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal, directed that the Original Application be placed for hearing on January 7, 2025. Learned Tribunal did not grant any interim relief to the writ petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the refusal to grant interim relief writ petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. In this writ petition, from time to time, co-ordinate Bench passed diverse orders.

6. In the writ petition by CAN 2 of 2025, Finance Department of the State of West Bengal seeks permission to repatriate the writ petitioner from his present posting to his parent department.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is a whistle blower. No doubt, the writ petitioner was an employee of the Finance Department but he was sent on deputation to Bally Municipality. He refers to the demerger of two municipalities. He submits that the writ petitioner came across financial irregularities in the affairs of the demerged municipality. He raised various objections with regard thereto. He submits that, the writ petitioner refused to verify and sign on bills which he found to be inappropriate. Since, the writ petitioner was crusading against the mismanagement as also the corruption at the demerged municipality, the Finance Department came up with the present application for the purpose of rendering the transfer order and consequently the Original Application before the Tribunal, infructuous.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the transfer order is under challenge before the learned Tribunal. According to him, the request of Finance Department as contained in CAN 2 of 2025 is tainted with mala fides. Application is for colateral purpose of attempting to render the writ petitioner remediless.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, a special audit was directed to be undertaken in respect of the affairs of the demerged municipality. Such audit is yet to be completed despite the statutory period of completion thereof being over. He submits that it is the anxiety of Bally Municipality to remove the writ petitioner from his present posting so that the special audit does not reflect the true and actual state of affairs of Bally municipality.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner apprehends that disciplinary proceedings will be initiated as against the writ petitioner. Such disciplinary proceedings will be mala fide and colourable exercise of powers of the employer, since, the writ petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities and to the public at large of the financial misdeeds of Bally Municipality.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner relies upon (2005) 8 SCC 394 [Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Ors.] and submits in reference to paragraph 32 thereof that, the permission for repatriation sought for is mala fide. He submits that, repatriation is to put the writ petitioner into further difficulty by initiating a disciplinary proceeding against him. He submits that, permission of repatriation, if allowed, will result in a stigma so far as the writ petitioner is concerned.

12. Learne