Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11775

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J
Gangu Bai Ramesh Manakar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00387/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prabhuling Navadgi, Skanda Kumar
For the Respondents: S. Prakash Shetty, Reuben Jacob, M. Rajakumar

Premature transfer of IAS officer before two-year tenure upheld based on prima facie material from departmental reports, without Civil Services Board or prior hearing, in administrative exigencies.

Headnote:(A) Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 7 (as amended in 2014) - Minimum tenure of two years for cadre posts unless promoted, retired, deputed or trained - Premature transfer permissible only on recommendation of Civil Services Board or, in its absence, by competent authority upon prima facie material - No hearing required prior to transfer order based on administrative exigencies and reports of misconduct. (Paras 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 22)

(B) Service Law - Transfer - No vested right to particular posting - Permissible in administrative exigencies without detailed enquiry if prima facie satisfaction exists on contemporary reports - Stigma argument inapplicable unless adverse civil consequences. (Paras 18, 19)

(C) Judicial Review - Writ courts should not interfere if quashing revives illegal order or substitutes view on administrative decision. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
IAS officer posted as Deputy Commissioner transferred after about one year to lesser post as Chief Editor based on DO letter from Revenue Department citing non-coordination with authorities, pending cases, slow work progress and past irregularities, supported by preliminary enquiry report. Challenge on grounds of violating two-year tenure rule and lack of Civil Services Board recommendation/hearing.

Findings of Court:
Civil Services Board constituted but kept in abeyance; Rule 7(3) minimum tenure applies but premature transfer valid on prima facie material by competent authority in absence of Board; sufficient basis existed from departmental reports; no interference warranted.

Issues: Whether transfer before two-year tenure without Board recommendation and hearing violates amended Cadre Rules; whether prima facie allegations require prior opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: Premature transfer upheld where government acts on credible prima facie reports of administrative lapses in public interest, without need for enquiry at transfer stage; tenure restriction not absolute in exigencies.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. oa challenges premature ias transfer order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. ias cadre rule 7 mandates two-year tenure. (Para 3 , 8)
3. respondents justify transfer; csb in abeyance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 12)
4. 2014 amendment requires csb recommendation for premature transfer. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. high court mandates csb constitution; tenure rule persists. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. transfer based on prima facie administrative complaints. (Para 16 , 17)
7. no hearing needed for non-punitive administrative transfers. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. sufficient material justifies transfer in administrative interest. (Para 21 , 22)
9. oa dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 23)

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

This OA has been filed on 08.07.2024 against the order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure – A3) by which the applicant has been transferred from the post of “Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District Karwar” to the post of “Chief Editor, Karnataka Gazetteer Department, Bengaluru”. The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-

“(a) Issue a writ of appropriate nature to set aside the impugned transfer notification e-DPAR 197 SAS 2024 dated 5.7.2024 Annexure – A3 issued by the 3^rd respondent which is passed in contravention of ‘2014 Amendment Rules.’

(b) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application.”

2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is an officer of Indian Administrative Service. By order dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure – A1) the applicant was posted as “Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada district Karwar”. Thereafter, by order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure – A3) the applicant has been transferred from the aforesaid post and posted as “Chief Editor, Karnataka Gazetteer Department, Bengaluru.”

3. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure – A3) upon the ground that as per Rule 7 of I.A.S. (Cadre) Rules, 1954, she was entitled for a period of two years. It is again submitted by the applicant that in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 263, the rules were amended and the committee was required to be constituted. Minimum tenure of posting is prescribed for two years. The transfer order dated 05.07.2024 is passed in contravention of the rules and judgment. The Civil Service Board is the competent authority for transfer before the minimum prescribed period. But without any recommendation the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, she filed this OA and seeks the relief stated in para 1 of this judgment.

4. Respondent No.1 is the formal party, therefore, he did not file any reply statement. Respondent No.4 was also served but she did not appear and did not file any reply before the Tribunal.

5. The Respondents No. 2 & 3 contested the case by filing their reply on 12.07.2024. It is submitted by the respondents that the reasons behind the transfer are elaborately explained in G.O. dated 05.07.2024. In the interest of “effective District Administration”, the transfer order has been passed. It is submitted that the PS Revenue Department submitted the DO letter dated 01.07.2024 against the applicant, therefore, the decision has been taken by the Government to transfer the applicant from the present place of posting. Hence, as per respondents, no interference is required.

6. It is also mentioned in the reply by the respondents that Civil Services Board was constituted vide order dated 31.01.2014 but by letter dated 12.03.2014 the same was kept in abeyance.

7. It is also submitted in para 15 of the reply filed by Respondents No. 2 & 3 that the applicant was waiting for posting and was posted as Secretary, Karnataka Information Commission, Bengaluru vide notification dated 19.06.2023 and thereafter was transferred as Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure – A1). Applicant did not challenge t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11775

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB.K. Shrivastava, JGangu Bai Ramesh Manakar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00387/2024

Premature transfer of IAS officer before two-year tenure upheld based on prima facie material from departmental reports, without Civil Services Board or prior hearing, in administrative exigencies.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J
Gangu Bai Ramesh Manakar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00387/2024