Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13427
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Judicial Member
B.S. Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00015/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Kamalesan
For the Respondents: Sayed S. Kazi
Post-disciplinary transfer of GDS on vigilance grounds upheld as non-punitive where based on substantiated public complaints, media reports, and guidelines; judicial interference limited absent mala fides or statutory violation.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 - Rule 10, 21(ii), 28; GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 - Rule 3(A)(iv) - Transfer of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) - After disciplinary proceedings resulting in penalty of removal (modified to reduction in TRCA slab for two years) and reinstatement, transfer on vigilance/administrative grounds from one branch post office to another within same division upheld - Public complaints substantiated by inquiry and media reports constitute vigilance grounds per Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2019 - Transfer not punitive or in lieu of punishment as disciplinary order attained finality - No malice or violation of statutory provisions established - Rule 28 inapplicable to transfer challenge. (Paras 10-13, 19)
(B) Service Law - Transfer - Scope of judicial review limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violation - Employee has no vested right to posting of choice - Individual convenience subordinate to administrative exigencies - Transfer incident of service, non-interference unless vitiated by perversity or illegality - Allegations of mala fides require impleadment of concerned persons. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
GDS Branch Postmaster faced disciplinary action for using rude language towards pension beneficiaries and failing to attend dharna site despite superior's instructions, leading to public agitation and media coverage. Charges proved; penalty of removal modified to TRCA reduction for two years. Post-reinstatement, transferred on vigilance grounds to another post in same division, challenged as punitive.
Findings of Court:
Impugned transfer order on vigilance grounds valid; separate from concluded disciplinary proceedings; public complaints and media reports justify vigilance transfer per guidelines; no malice, within same division, statutory compliance ensured.
Issues: Whether post-disciplinary transfer on vigilance grounds punitive and vitiated by malice; applicability of Rule 28; scope of interference in administrative transfers.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer on vigilance grounds post-final disciplinary penalty not punitive; public complaints with documentary evidence (inquiry, media) attract vigilance transfer guidelines; judicial review confined to mala fides/statutory breach, absent which transfer upheld as administrative exigency.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. oa challenges gds transfer order post-disciplinary penalty. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. transfer punitive after modified penalty, somesh tiwari applies. (Para 3) |
| 3. transfer justified on vigilance grounds per rules and om. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. disciplinary charges proved; penalty modified and final. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. rules permit gds transfer on administrative/vigilance grounds. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. transfer not punitive; somesh tiwari distinguished. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. no mala fides; transfer valid absent statutory violation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. rule 28 inapplicable; oa dismissed upholding transfer. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Call for records pertaining to the order of transfer, vide superintendent of post offices, Tumkur Dn, Tumkur 572 102 letter No. B6/168/dlgs/dated: 20-11-2023 Annexure-A6 issued by Respondent No. 4.
b) Declare that Rule 3 (A)(IV) of GDS (conduct engagement) Rule 2011 is contradictory to terms of engagement vide Rule 3 (A)(iii) (VII) (VIII) vide Annexure- A7.
c) To quash the letter issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tumkur Dn, Tumkur 572 102, letter No. B6/168/Dlgs/dated: 20-11-2023 Annexure-A6 issued by Respondent No. 4.
d) Consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 to post the applicant to Byala BO.
e) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
However, learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the aforementioned relief (b), as such, now the challenge is confined to the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-A6) issued by the Respondent No. 4.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he was appointed as GDS BPM at Byalya BO. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tumkur Division – Respondent No. 4 issued a charge memo under the provisions of Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement Rules), 2011 (‘Rules’ for short) and ordered inquiry pursuant to which the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from engagement after considering the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges levelled against the applicant were proved. On further challenge made by the applicant against the said penalty order, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty order from removal to that of reduction to a lower stage in TRCA slab for two years and the applicant was reinstated to service. Thereafter, the applicant has been transferred on vigilance grounds/administrative grounds vide impugned transfer order dated 20.11.2023 from Byalya BO account with Puravara SO to Malligehalli BO account with Chikkanayakanahalli SO. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned counsel Shri P. Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted that the applicant suffered the penalty of removal which was modified to reduction of TRCA for two years by the Appellate Authority. In addition to that, he has been transferred to a place of 100 kms away to his native place of Byalya which is another way of punishment. The applicant fulfilled the condition of GDS BPM Byalya from 1988 sincerely and honestly performing duties from 1988 to 19.06.2018. Due to some personal rivalry in the village, dharna was arranged by a so called social worker for the delay caused in disbursement of social security pension amount received through e-money orders to the beneficiaries for which the applicant was no way responsible, owing to which the applicant has been transferred. Learned counsel, referring to Rule 28 of the Rules, submitted that no Sevak shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any Court or to the Press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character, as such, no fault can be found with the applicant in not appearing before the public who staged dharna
