-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2001 1. Union of India, through the Commissioner of ) Central Excise, Mumbai -VII Commissionerate, ) 1st floor,CGO Complex, CBD, Navi Mumbai. ) 2. Additional Commissioner ( P & V), ) Central Excise, Mumbai -VII Commissionerate, ) 1st floor,CGO Complex, CBD, Navi Mumbai. ).Petitioners versus 1. Naresh Kumar Pandey ) Inspector of Central Excise (Audit) (Group C) ) R/0 Flat No. KL-6/7/8, Sector 3-E, Kalamboli, ) Navi Mumbai ) 2. S.M. Birjadar, ) Inspector of Central Excise (Legal Cell), (Group C) ) R/o C-5, 34/1-3, Sector 18, New Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ).Respondents Mr. J.B. Mishra, instructed by Mr. T.C. Kaushik, for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Pillai for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: JULY 15 , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.): Challenge in this petition is to the common order dated 12th March, 2001passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original -2- Application Nos. 714 and 725 of 2000. The said applications were preferred by the respondents on the ground that the deputation under the guise of transfer to the Marine and Preventive Wing of Mumbai Customs is illegal as they were initially appointed as Inspector of Central Excise. 2. It is the case of the respondents, original applicants before the Tribunal, that the Department has no authority to transfer them from Central Excise to Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs Department without their willingness. The Tribunal allowed the said applications by holding that the said transfer would amount to deputation and since the employees had not shown their willingness, they could not have been sent on deputation. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the said applications and quashed and set aside the order dated 21st September, 2000 by which the respondents were posted at the Marine and Preventive Wing of Mumbai Customs. 3. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned in this petition at the instance of the department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case of another officer who has filed Original Application No. 724 of 2000, the Tribunal found that it would not amount to deputation and such transfer is permissible, while in the instant case, the applications preferred by the respondents are -3- allowed by another member of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the transfer in question cannot be treated as deputation as it is part of the same department and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave error in passing the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the order of the Tribunal. 6. It is required to be noted that considerable time has passed since the Tribunal delivered the judgment and by this time many other officers must have been appointed at the transferred place where the respondents were sought to be transferred. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to go into detail the issue as to whether the impugned transfer can be said to be by way of deputation or it is purely an administrative order. Considering the time lag, we would not like to interfere with the impugned transfer order, whether it is deputation or transfer, which is set aside by the Tribunal. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the issue is kept open, though we may find some substance in the argument of the petitioners that it may not amount to deputation. In a given case, if any such points arise, the Tribunal without being influenced by the present order, shall de novo decide the said question on merits. -4- 7. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.