IMPORTANT POINT
For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour of conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Posts and Telegraphs Manual Vol. IV-Rule 37 read with D.G. Posts Letter No. 20-12/90-SPBI dated 23.8.1990-Fundamental Rules-Rule 15-Order of transfer-Challenged as violative of Rule 37 of P&T Manual and FR 15-Authorities case that transfer was done in public interest and on account of exigencies of administration-Respondent misbehaved with the Director (Postal Services), a senior lady officer-She was confined and dragged from one room to another-She was abused in filthy language and was physically manhandled-This conduct being unbecoming of an employee-Appellant has indicated as to why and under what circumstances the transfers were thought proper in the interests of public service-Whether High Court was justified in holding that there was violation of Rule 37 or FR 15-(No)-Interpretation put on ambit of FR 15 is clearly wrong.
       Held : A bare reading of FR-15 makes it clear that except in cases where the transfer is (a) on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour or (b) on a written request the government servant cannot be transferred or except in a case covered by Rule 49 appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. The clear intention of the prescription is that except the two categories indicated above, in all other cases the pay to be paid on transfer shall not be less than of the post on which he holds a lien. Exception is made in case of a transfer where it is on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour. In a case where transfer is on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. Similar is the position where a transfer is made on a written request. Where the transfer is otherwise than for inefficiency or mis-behaviour or on a written request made by the transferred employee, the protection of pay is ensured. The High Court seems to have completely mis-construed the rule as if there cannot be any transfer in terms of FR 15 on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour. (Para 10)
       The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any mis-behaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. In these two appeals, the Union of India questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala whereby two writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed and the common order of transfer dated 10.9.2002 in respect of four employees was quashed so far as it relates to the respondents.

3. Background facts sans unnecessary detail are as follows :

The respondents were working in the Postal Services Department. They were transferred from Agartala Division to Meghalaya Division by order of transfer dated 10.9.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the respondents (writ petitioners) along with two others moved the Central Administrative Tribunal at Guwahati (in short the Tribunal ). The Tribunal after hearing the parties directed the authorities to consider the representations made by the two lady applicants who were co-applicants along with the respondents within one month. So far as the present respondents are concerned, no interference was made by the Tribunal with the order. Challenging the decision of the Tribunal, the writ petitions were filed. The grounds on which the writ petitions were filed were (a) the transfer orders of the two respondents were in violation of the provisions of Rule 37 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV (in short the Manual ) read with D.G. Posts Letter No. 20-12/90-SPBI dated 23.8.1990; (b) the transfer is in violation of Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules (in short FR 15 ) and (c) the inter Divisional transfer would effect the seniority and promotional prospects of the writ petitioners and (d) the transfer order was passed as a measure of penalty.

4. The Union of India took the stand that the transfer was done in public interest and on account of exigencies of administration. It was pointed out that the respondents not only misbehaved with the Director (Postal Services), a senior lady officer, she was confined and dragged from one room to another and this was done with a view to force her to withdraw the charge sheet against the Deputy Post Master. She was abused in filthy language and was physically manhandled. This conduct was certainly unbecoming of an employee and with a view to enforce discipline and to avoid recurrence of such unfortunate incident, they were transferred. There was no violation of either Rule 37 of the Manual or FR 15. The High Court accepted the prayers made in the writ petitions and held that transfer was impermissible in terms of Rule 37 and was in violation of FR 15. It was as a measure of penalty and the seniority and the promotional prospects were likely to be affected.

5. In support of the appellants Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It erroneously held that there was violation of Rule 37 or FR 15. The interpretation put on the ambit of FR 15 is clearly wrong, as the proviso has not been taken note of. As the transfer was not a punitive one but as a measure of enforcing discipline, in public interest and in the exigencies of administration there was no scope for the High Court to entertain the writ petitions and grant relief.

6. Per contra, Mr. Rajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel submitted that in the transfer order itself it has been mentioned that the employees were undesirable, as they had misbehaved. Before effecting transfer there ought to have been an enquiry to find out whether there was any misbehaviour committed by the respondents, or that they were undesirable as stated. According to him, the High Court has correctly interpreted FR 15. With reference to a letter dated 23.8.1990, it was submitted that there was no scope for transferring from any part of the country to another part as was stipulated in the appointment order. It was submitted that in terms of the letter, the scope of transfer to any part of the country was obliterated. There can be no grievance if the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 191

IMPORTANT POINTFor the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour of conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour of conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned.