Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.
Santanu Dutta - Appellants
Vs.
General Manager, N.F. Railway and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) No. 224(K) of 2005
Decided On: 25.04.2006
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K. Meruno, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.N. Sharma, Adv.
The court emphasized that unless a transfer order is shown to be in mala fide exercise of powers or in violation of statutory provisions, the court shall not interfere with such orders.
Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Instructions - Railways - 16.1.1980 - Para 2, 7.2 - The court discussed the administrative instructions issued by the Railways regarding the transfer of office-bearers of recognized trade unions, highlighting the exceptions for extraordinary or emergent situations and the importance of public interest and administrative exigencies in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an office-bearer of a recognized trade union, challenged his transfer from Dimapur to Lower Haflong by the Railways, alleging violation of administrative instructions and mala fide motives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's transfer was not actuated by mala fide and was based on administrative reasons, emphasizing the necessity of transfer in public interest and efficiency in public administration.
Issues: Violation of administrative instructions, mala fide motives, and public interest in transfer orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless a transfer order is shown to be in mala fide exercise of powers or in violation of statutory provisions, the court shall not interfere with such orders. Administrative guidelines regulating transfers do not confer legally enforceable rights unless the transfer order is vitiated by mala fide or made in violation of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim directions to maintain status quo were vacated.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. In terms of the administrative instructions, issued, on 16.1.1980, by the Railways, a proposal for transfer of an office-bearer of a recognised trade union including the branches thereof should be communicated by the Railways to the trade union concerned with liberty given to the trade union to bring to the notice of the Divisional office and if necessary, to the General Manager, any objection that the trade union may have against such proposed transfer. These administrative instructions further require that in the case of transfer of an office-bearer of a recognized trade union, sufficient time should be given to the trade union to make alternative arrangements for carrying out its work or for making its representation against such proposed transfer.
2. While working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk, at Dimapur Railway station, under the control of Respondent No. 4, the Petitioner has been transferred, vide order, dated 10.6.2005, to Lower Haflong, which also falls under the control of the Respondent No. 4. On the ground what while transferring the Petitioner, the administrative instructions, contained in the letter, dated 16.1.1980, aforementioned, have been violated inasmuch as the Petitioner is an elected Branch, Secretary of the NF Railway's Union, Dimapur Branch, but before the said transfer order, dated 10.6.2005, was passed, no opportunity to the Petitioner's trade union was given to have their say in the matter, the Petitioner has approached this Court, with the help of the present writ petition made under Article226 of the Constitution of India, to get the said transfer order, dated 10.6.2005, set aside and quashed. The Petitioner has impugned the transfer order with further allegation that the impugned transfer order suffers from mala fide and ulterior motives.
3. Resisting the writ petition, the Respondents have submitted to the effect, inter alia, that while conducting investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation ('the CBI'), detected, on 24.2.2005, some irregularities having been committed by the Petitioner and has, accordingly, registered a case, in this regard, on 15.5.2004, against the Petitioner and as investigation is pending and the CBI has suggested that for effective investigation, the Petitioner may be transferred from Dimapur, for, the Petitioner, being an influential person, may temper with the investigation, the impugned transfer order was issued. This transfer order, according to the Respondents, is wholly for administrative reasons, not mala fide and not with ulterior motives.
4. I have heard Mr. K. Meruno, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
5. While considering the present writ petition, what is pertinent to note is that it is not in dispute that the CBI has registered a case against, amongst others, the present Petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the CBI had suggested transfer of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner, being influential, might temper with the investigation.
6. As a matter of fact, while the Respondents have specifically averred in their counter-affidavit that the Petitioner had obtained interim order from this Court by suppressing the material facts from this Court, the Petitioner has, nowhere, denied, in his affidavit-in-reply, that he was unaware of the request made by the CBI for his transfer from his place of posting at Dimapur. It is in such circumstances that the present writ petition needs to be considered.
7. True it is, as submitted on behalf of the writ Petitioner, that the executive instructions aforementioned do not permit transfer of a member of the employees Union without affording an opportunity to the Union concerned to make a representation against the proposal to transfer an office-bearer of the Union. What is, however, of utmost importance to note is that the instructions, dated 16.1.1980, aforementioned are instruc
