REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7308 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3516 of 2007)

Somesh Tiwari

…. Appellant

Versus

Union of India and others

….

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

1.

A short but an interesting question that arises for consideration in this

appeal is as to whether the High Court while quashing an order of transfer

passed against the appellant was correct in directing that he would not be

entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified

1

order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed till the date he again joined his

duties at the original place.

2.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant is an officer

of Indian Revenue Service. He was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of

Central Excise at Bhopal.

3.

Inter alia, on the premise that the employees posted at the Bhopal

office of the respondents apprehending disciplinary as also criminal

proceedings at the hands of the appellant on the basis of the reassessment of

the files undertaken by him, an anonymous complaint was made alleging

caste-bias on his part, pursuant whereto an order of transfer was passed

against him on or about 22^nd August, 2005.

4.

Prior thereto he had filed a representation stating that, as he had been

undergoing some treatment, he should be retained at Bhopal. Appellant,

however, contended that in view of the fact that he had taken action against

some erring officers, they were instrumental in sending the said anonymous

letter on the basis whereof no action should have been taken in the light of

the circular letters issued by the Central Vigilance Commission.

2

5.

It is, however, accepted that an enquiry was conducted by an

Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance, into the said anonymous

complaint wherein allegations made against the appellant were not found to

be true but still recommendations were made that he be transferred from

Bhopal. Only on that basis he was transferred to Shillong.

6.

He indisputably made a representation praying that on compassionate

and humanitarian grounds, he may be retained at Bhopal for at least one

year. The said representation was not responded to.

7.

In the aforementioned factual backdrop, he filed an O.A. before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench which was marked as O.A.

No. 897 of 2005. By an order dated 27^th September, 2005, having regard to

the fact that the representation filed by the appellant had not been disposed

of by the authorities of the respondents, it was directed :-

“4.

Accordingly, we direct the Respondent No.2

to consider and decide the representation of the

applicant dated 29^th August, 2005 (Annexure A-5)

and take a decision by passing a speaking, detailed

and reasoned order within a period of 4 weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Till the decision is taken by the Respondent No.2

on the representation of the applicant, he will not

be disturbed from the present place of posting.

The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to

3

send a copy of this order as well as the copy of the

petition to the Respondent No.2 immediately.”

8.

By an order dated 19^th October, 2005 the said representation was

rejected.

9.

Another representation was filed by the appellant on or about 25^th

October, 2005, stating :-

“I don’t know whether any/some adverse report

(reports) were sent by this Commissionerate or by

Chief Commissioner office because if there were

complaints against me, those were neither

communicated to me nor I was given any

opportunity to hear. It would not be surprising if

any adverse report/reports were sent against me in

such atmosphere of conspiracy against me.

Hence it is my humble pray that if any

report/reports were sent by this office of Chief

Commissioner office or Board or other forum,

concerned file be shown to me along with supply

of documents (i