Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Indresh Kumar S/o Rajendra Rai – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through General Manager – Respondent
WP (S) No. 8613 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 12 – Transfer order of physically challenged employee challenged – The Central Administrative Tribunal directed reconsideration of transfer order based on Internal Complaint Committee's report – The petitioner alleged bias and violation of natural justice in the transfer process – The court upheld the CAT's order, emphasizing the statutory provisions for transfer during inquiry. (Paras 1, 6, 19)
(B) Natural Justice – The principle of natural justice was discussed in the context of the transfer order and the inquiry process against the petitioner, highlighting the need for fair treatment in administrative actions. (Paras 6, 19)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, a physically challenged employee and President of the Physically Challenged Employee Association, faced a transfer order following a complaint against him, which he claimed was a result of bias due to his whistleblowing activities. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court: The court found no error in the CAT's order directing a reconsideration of the transfer order, affirming the statutory basis for the transfer during the inquiry process. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer order was justified and if the petitioner was treated fairly in the inquiry process. (Paras 6, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer was valid under the statutory provisions of the Act, and the CAT's directive for reconsideration was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. (Paras 19)
Result: Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the CAT for further relief. (Paras 20)
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P/12), whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘the CAT’) rejected the application of petitioner directing the competent authority to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a physically challenged employee and posted as Superintendent of Railway Bhandar Department Bilaspur (C.G.). He was elected the President of Physically Challenged Employee Association (for short “PCEA”) in the year 2017. The petitioner being President of PCEA initiated several steps for the welfare of physically challenged employees and in order to expose irregularities and corruption of his division, he had filed several application under RTI. The petitioner filed an appeal under RTI (Annexure P/2) and when the information sought by the petitioner was supplied, the irregularities and corruption came to fore. On account of this act of the petitioner, the corrupt officers of the railway department and his division having enmity with the petitioner, concocted a false story and on 28.11.2019, a complaint (Annexure P/3) of filthy and ugly messages alleged to be sent by him to one lady namely Rajeshwari who is also a physically challenged employee was lodged against the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, when he sought the copy of said complaint through RTI, the concerned RTI officer replied that no such complaint was available on record, and when the proceeding was initiated, the concerned department provide a copy of the complaint.
4. Thereafter, an FIR (Annexure P/4) was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 509(B) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur vide FIR No. 0419/19 dated 29.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application (Annexure P/5) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. During the pendency of bail application, the victim/complainant namely Rajeshwari filed an affidavit (Annexure P/6) before the trial Court on 04.12.2019 to the effect that the FIR was got lodged by victim namely Rajeshwari in the misconception and misleading, she has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail and accordingly, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide Annexure P/7. Thereafter, an enquiry complaint committee was constituted and proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner appeared on the every date of hearing. The petitioner was then transferred by the enquiry committee of Railway Department. The disciplinary committee without considering any representation and submission of the petitioner passed the transfer order as disciplinary action.
5. Being aggrieved by the report of Internal Complaint Committee (for short “ICC”) and transfer order dated 10.07.2020, the petitioner filed an original application (Annexure P/11) before the CAT bearing Original O.A. No. 203/356/2020 for setting aside the transfer order dated 10.07.2020. The learned CAT rejected the application of petitioner directing the competent authority to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of impugned order. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 05.09.2023 is Annexure P/12. Thereafter, the ICC of Railway Department in compliance of order dated 05.09.2023, charge sheeted the petitioner on 20.09.2023 vide charge sheet No. CDMS (G)/ SF-5/IK/OS/Dy. CMM(S)GSD/R/2023/436 and ther
The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's order for reconsideration of a transfer order under statutory provisions, affirming the validity of transfers during inquiry processes.
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
The main legal point established is that transfer in a transferable job is an exigency of service, and the Courts should not readily interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for adm....
Burden of proving mala fides in transfer orders is high; transfers made in public interest are generally not subject to judicial intervention unless proven arbitrary.
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
Point of Law : Service Law – Charge sheet - At the charge sheet stage, the Court will not go into the correctness of the charges. It is for the Inquiry Officer who has been appointed by the Disciplin....
Judicial review of administrative actions is limited; transfers and suspensions are permissible unless proven to be mala fide or against established guidelines.
Transfer orders in public administration are justified unless proven to be mala fide, unlawful, or against established statutory provisions; no absolute right for an employee to remain in one postal ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
