CWP No. 9836 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 9836 of 2009 Date of decision 20 .1.2010 Union of India and others ... Petitioners Versus J.K. Bansal and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Union of India has approached this Court by filing the instant petition challenging order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 64 PB -2008. The Tribunal has quashed the transfer order of respondent Shri J.K.Bansal on two grounds. Firstly, it has been found that the basic reason for his transfer is that he had initiated disciplinary proceedings against a worker who was subjected to penalty. For the reason of imposition of penalty, the railway union agitated against the respondent and sought his transfer. It has further been found that the respondent was not guilty of any charges and had merely reported against the delinquent employee who ultimately suffered penal action. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that transfer of the respondent was not on account of administrative exigencies but was on account of extraneous influence and pressure of the union. The CWP No. 9836 of 2009 2 Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Arvind Dattaraya Dhande v. The State of Maharashtra and others (1997)6 SCC 169. In that case an Excise Inspector was transferred when country liquor vendor made a complaint against him. The work of the Excise Inspector has been found to be commendable. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while quashing the transfer order passed strictures against the State Government. It went on to hold that transfer of such an Excise Inspector was not in public interest and amounted to victimizing an honest officer. It was held that he had booked a contractor for adulterating harmful and poisonous substance which could endanger the life of a consumer of liquor. For performing his duty of bringing the culprit to the fold of law, a complaint was made by the liquor contractors which constituted the basis for his transfer. It has further been held that such a transfer could not be regarded in public interest but was the victimization of an honest officer at the behest of the Contractor who was indulging in illegal activities. Likewise, in the present case, respondent no.1 had performed his duty and has inflicted punishment on the erring worker which has resulted in agitation in certain quarters. A complaint made by a group of workers is wholly unwarranted and would amount to victimization of an officer like respondent no.1 who has performed his duty in accordance with law. If an honest officer is transferred for performing his duty then it would discourage any officer in the organisation to act in accordance with law which would negate the public interest. At the hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the Union of India as to whether the disciplinary action against the workman by the respondent was dropped. The answer given is obviously 'no'. If the CWP No. 9836 of 2009 3 disciplinary action against the worker has been found to be sustainable in the eyes of law then it cannot sound in penalizing the respondent no.1 by transferring him to some other place. Therefore, we are of the view that the rationale adopted by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity and deserves to be upheld. The other reason given by the Tribunal for quashing the transfer order is that it was against the policy/ guide-lines. It is true that policy/ guide-lines may not be justiciable in a Court of law and the violation of the policy/ guide-lines alone may not constitute a valid basis for quashing of transfer order. However, if the policy/ guide-lines have been violated coupled with other substantive reasons then such a rationale would not suffer from any illegality. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 20.1.2010 Judge okg