Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Prof. (Dr) Basudeb Das, son of Late Sudha Krishna Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.917 of 2024
Decided on : 04-03-2024
[TRANSFER] - [Writ Petition under Article 226] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the principles governing transfer orders, emphasizing that such orders are generally not subject to judicial interference unless they are found to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions. The court highlighted the importance of administrative exigency in transfer decisions, particularly in the context of ongoing inquiries into alleged irregularities. The court concluded that the transfer was justified to ensure a fair investigation and did not constitute punishment, thus affirming the tribunal's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Professor at the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi, challenged his transfer to GNCT, Delhi, arguing it was punitive and lacked due process. He had previously faced multiple show-cause notices regarding alleged irregularities in his duties but no formal charges were framed against him. Following his removal from the Director position, he was transferred without a proper inquiry into the allegations against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was not punitive but rather a necessary administrative action to facilitate a fair inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner. The tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's application was upheld, as the transfer was deemed to be within the authority's discretion and not in violation of any statutory provisions.
Issues: ['Whether the order of transfer can be said to be punitive?', 'Whether the order of transfer suffers from the vice of malice?', 'Whether the appointing authority has the power to transfer on administrative exigency to ensure a proper inquiry?']
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that transfer orders are generally not subject to judicial review unless they are shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the appointing authority has the discretion to transfer employees for administrative exigency, particularly to prevent interference in ongoing inquiries.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's decision that the transfer was justified and did not violate any legal provisions.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna (Ranchi Bench) dated 14.02.2024 passed in O.A./051/00927/2023 has been assailed whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of order of transfer dated 28.11.2023 as contained in order no. C-13011/5/2023-CHS-III, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, (CHS Division) and relieving order dated 28.11.2023 as contained in Memo No.A.12020/1/2006-ESTT, issued under the signature of Director, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi has been rejected.
Further direction has been sought for quashing of order of transfer dated 28.11.2023 as contained in order no. C-13011/5/2023-CHS-III, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, (CHS Division) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi to G.N.C.T., Delhi.
Prayer has also been made for quashing of office order dated 28.11.2023 as contained in Memo No.A.12020/1/2006-ESTT, issued under the signature of Director, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi whereby the petitioner has been relieved from his duty and responsibility with immediate effect to join GNCT with direction to report to the Principal Secretary, Health, GNCT, Delhi at Delhi Secretariat.
2. The facts which led the writ petitioner to file the writ petition as per the pleading made in the writ petition are as under :-
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Psychiatry in CIP, Ranchi in 2006 and since then, he is working there.
3. In the year 2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor (Psychiatry) and thereafter, in the year 2012, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor, (Psychiatry). The petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor-Director (Psychiatry) w.e.f. 28.12.2019 vide office order dated 07.05.2021.
4. On 20.06.2023, the petitioner was served with the show-cause notice issued under the signature of Deputy Director, (Medical Education), Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India whereby, the petitioner was asked to reply against two allegations with respect to outsourcing of house-keeping services and security guard services. In response, the petitioner immediately made a detailed reply vide letter dated 23.06.2023 addressed to the Deputy Director, explaining each and every charges leveled against him in details.
5. Again vide letter dated 22.09.2023, the petitioner was again show-caused by the very same authority without approval of the competent authority with respect to a complete different issue/allegation asking him to reply with respect to recruitment of nursing officers in the year 2021 and 2022. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid show cause vide reply letter dated 27.09.2023.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner was again served with a third show-cause notice dated 17.10.2023 by the very same authority with respect to revenue expenditure spent in buying library books and other allegations which has no concern with the allegations with respect to previous two show-cause notices. In reply thereto, the petitioner has made a detailed reply vide letter dated 20.10.2023.
7. Since no charges were framed against him or any disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him, meaning thereby that the respondent authorities have found the replies to the show cause notices satisfactory and hence not thought to proceed further in the said matters.
8. But the petitioner received an order dated 20.10.2023 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Government of India whereby, the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of Director, CIP, Ranchi to Dr. Tarun Kumar immediately and send the compliance report to the Ministry by 5:00 p.m.
9. In compliance of the afore
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 transfer order based on allegations should be followed by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action, and the individual should be provided an opportunity to defend against the allegations ....
The court affirmed that transfer of a government employee is a necessary incident of service, with limited grounds for judicial review, primarily focusing on administrative necessity without proof of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of the petitioner was upheld based on public interest and administrative exigencies, in accordance with the CSIR guidelines for t....
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
