IMPORTANT POINT
A prior court ruling on an employee's eligibility for transfer precludes subsequent disciplinary action based on the same grounds.

JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. None has appeared for the respondent no. 7.

2. By filing this writ petition, the Memorandum of Charges dated 06/11/2023 served upon the writ petitioner, has been put under challenge inter-alia on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and has been serve with the mala fide intent to cause injury to the writ petitioner.

3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, may be notice as hereunder :-

4. The writ petitioner was serving as a Lower Division Clerk under the Border Road Organization (BRO/GREF) and posted at Daporijo in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On 06/07/2018, the respondent no. 7 i.e. the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) had issued a vacancy circular for absorption of LDCs on transfer/absorption basis. In response to the circular dated 06/07/2018, the writ petitioner had applied for the post of LDC which was approved on 10/10/2018. According to the petitioner, his application was duly forwarded by his employer i.e. BRO authorities and on 13/06/2022, the ICAR had also approved the said application. Notwithstanding the same, by the letter dated 14/07/2022, the writ petitioner was informed that the earlier letter dated 10/10/2018 approving the forwarding of the application to the ICAR had been cancelled on the ground that his application was not forwarded by following the prescribed procedure under the relevant Rules. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14/07/2022, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5232/2022.

5. It would be pertinent to mention herein that on an earlier occasion, the writ petitioner and few other employees of the BRO had sought NOC from the authorities to apply for certain posts in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation. When no such NOC was issued, the writ petitioner along with other aggrieved persons had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 31/2017, which was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 21/02/2017 with a direction to the authorities to issue NOC to the petitioners. However, it appears that since the last date of submission of NOC was over, the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the order dated 21/02/2017 passed in WP(C) No. 31/2017.

6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations made by this Court in the judgement and order dated 21/02/2017 passed in WP(C) 31/2017 as well as the materials available on record, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the writ petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by making the following observations in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the judgement and order dated 10/10/2023 passed in WP(C) No. 5323/2022 :-

“14. In the instant case, this Court has also noticed that the application of the petitioner was forwarded on 10.10.2018 and the petitioner could not have any role in the procedure adopted while issuing such forwarding letter and this Court finds force in the argument that the petitioner had reasons to believe that the due process of law was fulfilled. This Court has also noticed that in the Offer Letter by the ICAR dated 13.06.2022 where certain conditions have been laid down, the said letter was addressed to the present employer of the petitioner and only copy thereof was marked to him. The conditions stated for such absorption which were required to be fulfilled could be reasonably assumed to have been done when the forwarding letter dated 10.10.2018 was issued. Shri Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that at no earlier point of time, the petitioner was informed that the initial letter of approval dated 10.10.2018 was cancelled on the very next date. This Court has also noticed that if such forwarding was cancelled on the very next date, how could a