Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3882
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Girish Shukla and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Service Single Nos. 4106, 4031 and 4136 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2015
For the Appellant: Vishwa Mohini and Vimal Kumar
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfers within a department can be made in administrative exigency and the interest of the department, and allegations of mala fides must be supported by strong and convincing evidence.
Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Exigency - U.P. Rural Engineering Department, Lipik Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1987 - Rule 4(2) - Sajid Hussain and another vs. District Basic Shiksha Education Officer, Budaun and others 1998 (32) ALR page 619, Munna Lal Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others 2003 (5) AWC 4540, Guddu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2014 (3) ALJ 86 - Malice - Smt. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India and another AIR 1979 SC 49, Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2009) 13 SCC 758, Smt. Vineeta Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (30) LCD 1339, Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1399, P. Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others (2007) 9 SCC 497, Tarkeshwar Pandey and others vs. General Manager, U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and others (1995) 2 ULBEC 766 - General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and another vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another (1988) 2 SCC 351, Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2247 - Tara Prasad Misra vs. State of U.P. and others (1990) 2 UPLBEC 905, Om Prakash Rana vs. Swaroop Singh Tomar and others (1986) 3 SCC 118, B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others (1986) 4 SCC 131 - Transferable Service - Administrative Exigency - Malice in Law - Malice in Fact
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of the U.P. Rural Engineering Department, were transferred from one place to another within the same circle. They challenged the transfers on the grounds that the transfers were not in administrative exigency or the interest of the department and were made with malice. The respondents argued that the transfers were within the authority of the Director-cum-Chief Engineer and were not mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfers were within the authority of the Director-cum-Chief Engineer and were made in administrative exigency and the interest of the department. The court also found that the petitioners failed to provide strong and convincing evidence to establish mala fides, and the allegations of mala fides were not supported by concrete materials.
Issues: 1. Validity of transfers within the U.P. Rural Engineering Department. 2. Allegations of mala fides in the transfers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfers were within the authority of the Director-cum-Chief Engineer and were made in administrative exigency and the interest of the department. The court also emphasized that allegations of mala fides must be supported by strong and convincing evidence, and should not be entertained on mere conjectures or surmises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the transfers, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of transfer.
Anil Kumar, J.
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all three writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 4106 (SS) of 2015, 4031 (SS) of 2015 and 4136 (SS) of 2015) are clubbed and heard together as the controversy involved in the present matters stands on same facts and law.
Writ Petition No. 4106 (SS) of 2015
2. Shri Girish Shukla/Petitioner who was working on the post of Junior Assistant (Group-C) in the office of opposite party No. 3/Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Circle-Faizabad by means of the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by opposite party No. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer, (U.P.), Rural Engineering Department, IIIrd Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow has been transferred from Circle-Office-Faizabad to Division-Amethi.
Writ Petition No. 4031 (SS) of 2015
3. Shri Hari Nath/Petitioner who was working on the post of Junior Assistant (Group-C) in the office of opposite party No. 3/Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Circle-Faizabad by means of the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by opposite party No. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer, (U.P.), Rural Engineering Department, IIIrd Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow has been transferred from Circle Office-Faizabad to Division-Amethi.
Writ Petition No. 4136 (SS) of 2015
4. Shri Hari Shankar Mishra/Petitioner who was working on the post of Draftsman (Group-C) in the office of opposite party No. 3/Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Circle-Faizabad by means of the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by opposite party No. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer, (U.P.), Rural Engineering Department, IIIrd Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow has been transferred from Circle Office-Faizabad to Division-Ambedkar Nagar.
5. Km. Vishwa Mohini, learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders of transfer in the matter in question submits that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Rules known as U.P. Rural Engineering Department, Lipik Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1987 and as per Rule 4(2), the appointing authority of the petitioner is Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Circle-Faizabad. So, opposite party No. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer (U.P.) Rural Engineering Department, IIIrd Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow who is the higher authority to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Circle-Faizabadppointing authority has got no power to transfer the petitioners from one place to another place within a circle. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the following judgments: -
(i) Tara Prasad Misra vs. State of U.P. and others (1990) 2 UPLBEC 905
(ii) Om Prakash Rana vs. Swaroop Singh Tomar and others (1986) 3 SCC 118
(iii) B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others (1986) 4 SCC 131
(iv) General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and another vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another (1988) 2 SCC 351
(v) Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2247
6. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of transfer were passed in mala fide manner by the opposite party No. 2/Director-cum-Chief Engineer (U.P.) Rural Engineering Department, IIIrd Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow only to victimize them and the same are neither in administrative exigency of service nor in the interest of department. In order to establish the malice, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the documents and materials as brought by the petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, it has been argued that persons who are working in circle or division in Faizabad circle got a longer tenure of service in comparison to the petitioners are retained whereas only the petitioners have been transferred. In this regard, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the opposite party No. 2 with oblique, motive and purpose cancel the transfer order passed by the opposite party No. 3. The said action on the p
