The employer has the authority to transfer an employee, and the court's interference is limited to cases lacking jurisdiction or proven mala fide based on specific averments.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed, challenging the order of transfer dated 27.01.2021 (Annexure P-16) by which, the petitioner has been transferred from HPHC Division, Panchkula to HPHC Division, Faridabad; with a further prayer that the show cause notice, which has been issued on 27.01.2021 be also set aside.

2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition has stated that the transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be set aside as the same is passed in violation of the provisions of the transfer policy of the year 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was posted at Panchkula only in the year 2019 and he is yet to complete the minimum required period of three years at Panchkula and therefore, the transfer of the petitioner from HPHC Division, Panchkula to HPHC Division, Faridabad is contrary to the said transfer policy.

3. The transfer policy, violation of which is being alleged, appended as Annexure P-18, shows that the same is only applicable where the cadre strength of a post is more than 500 sanctioned posts and above. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the cadre strength of the post on which the petitioner is working is not beyond 500 sanctioned post. That being so, the reliance being placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the transfer policy dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-18) to challenge the transfer order dated 27.01.2021 (Annexure P-16) is totally misplaced and cannot be accepted as the same is not applicable in his case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said transfer is on account of mala fide intention of the respondents. A perusal of the averments made in the petition would show that no officer of the respondent/corporation has been impleaded by name to allege mala fide. In the absence of any pleading and naming a particular officer, who is prejudiced against the petitioner and is acting with mala fide, the said argument cannot be taken into account for consideration by this Court. In the present case, only a bald statement of mala fide has been made without naming any officer, who is acting in a mala fide manner against the petitioner. In the absence of the specific pleadings and the impleadment of the said officer against whom mala fide is alleged, the bald statement of the petitioner that the order suffers from mala fide, cannot be entertained and is accordingly rejected.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while deciding Civil Appeal No.1236 of 2020, titled as Union of India and another Vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit, decided on 07.02.2020 has held that it is within the domain of an employer to transfer an employee and no employee can claim continuance at a particular place of posting. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the High Court cannot dictate to the employer as to where an employee should be posted even during the period of suspension. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

"The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which has weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted d