Sinffl^ ® IN THE H1GS COVBX OF JOD^CATOBE AT BIIASPUB (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN N0 [TIQN N0.^883 /2005 EETIIIONER •^•••" ^^/ ^..:-%'^,< ..<;--^' ^y> <-^' ..:y KESPONDENTS VERSUS K.K. Yadav, S/o. Shri Y.N. Yadav, Aged about 37 years/ Occupation - service, Presently working as Asslstant Manager, R.M. Office, BSP Unit, Chennai (Tamilnadu), R/o. Qr ,No • 12~A, F-Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (C<G) ']/. Chairman, ^ Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist.Durg (C.G.) Through its Managlng Director Chief Personnel Manager (Executive Cell), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) WEUT HETITION UNDER MCTICUE 2i^(5/227^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSTOWCE OF WRIT IN IHE NATOKE OF CERTIOKUa, MaNDAMOS, EROHIBITIQN AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, OBDER OR OBDERS, DIRECTION OR DIKBCIIONS XI-HC-78 *ll*loi ^TT^ vd-Dq -qi^iirt^, y-^1^^i<i, f^rti^-iy^ l-s; ,P - Z+^g^ 3TT^^T<PTR-lJcb ^CTf37T^$T?PHtc^ 3TI^?T q^P (^clIjcjcE;) ^200^ ^PTT^R^rf^ OT^^T 20.10,2005 W.P.No.4889/2005 aald subsbiits Snit. Fouzia Mirza, Heard on admission. The petitioner, who BhUai Steel Plaat, BhUai order dated 6.8.2004(Amiex his traasfer order. Smt. Fouzia Mirza su1 gouig on agamst tiie petitic 14.7.2004 aad an order oi petitioner. She furtlier piinishuient dated 14.7.20C appeal before tlie couceniedi decided the appeal on 10.51 petitioner was reduced. Sh] the order of punishm.en^ 14.7.2004, tiie petitioner 6.8.2004 from BhUai to Che| The law in relation Biatt.er of traiisfer is now dealiiig with the matter Dwn^dar Prascid Pande^J co^iiisel for tlie petitioner. the traiisfer which is an. in.c|: witli by the Courts ualessl <pj<<Io<i)Ti ^!*ic^T^rI^^cl ^Fji^i^ ^^ri^TOT^^T 7Q.S workiiig as Assistaiit Maiiager io. has been trao.sferred vide mipugned hre P-2) has chaUenged the validity of )mits that a depai'tinental euqziuy was tner an-d the same was completed on puuishBient was passed agaiast tlie that against tlie aibresaid order of |4, the petitiouer filed a depart.m.ental lauthority aad the concei-ned autliority 12005 aad punishment awarded to the ^ forfher submits tha.t after passing of by the discipUiiaiy authority on |has been malafidelv transfeiTed on (inai. fco in.terference bv the Courts ui tlie ¥eU settled. The Apex Cozirt while of Kendriicisa WidtsalmsaScutCfathwi -Vs' .2004 A!S SCW 5563 observed tliat Idence of service is not to be uiterfered it is shown to be clearly arbitrar}7 or 1 \jx^^^leW,tni1»<i<i<ff,R<ni<<i^< ^M^MP^l^ ^200 9TI^T<OTt^lN nW3n^^T^^i<h 3TT^5T crazP((l€1^4<6{) , g^W^rfS^T 3TT^^T -Z-- vitiated by ^nala-fide or principles govemiiig the t|ransfer. (please see Ainbani Kanta Raij - Vs- Staie ofOnssa - 1995 transfer is vitiated by mal guideliiies, the Coiirt caiu Vs- S.L. AbbasAIR 1993 f. <bi^[c641^HI+lc!>T^ffec& KRl^iK ^arf^T^W^T iiifraction of aiiy prescribecl nonas of ^SunpL)^ SCC16S. Unless the order of ^fide or is made in. violation ofoperative \tot u.1terfere with it. fSee Union oflndia- FC 2444). Who should be traiisferred aad posted where is a m.atter J| Uuless the order of traiisj violation of operative any ordinarily uiterfere with Janardan Dcbdnath ^ ^r the admiiiistrative authority to decide. |er is vitiated by mala fide or is made hi ^uideliiies or inles the Courts should uot [it. In Uni^n @f Jndia & ^thers -ys- ansther (2004] 4 SCC 245, it was observed as follows: SNo Goi undertaking any\ one par^cui transfer ofa^ or category another is r^ sennce, nece^ m fhe publi\ transfer .is exerase or provisrons pr^ the Tribunalk orders as a appellate aut^ tha^ of ihe 4 order pass^ exigencies of\ highlighted Pewer Corp4 574.,. ^e?nment sen^ani or employee of a public J^as any legal right to be posiedforever at r^cular place or place of hi^ choice since part.icular ernployee appoinied to the class ^f iransferable posts frorn one place to }pt only an incident, but a condition of ^sary too in public interest and effidency t^ administration. Unless an order of \hoivn io be an outcome of mala-fide ^tated to be in violation of statutory ^hibiting any such transfer, the Courts or nomially cannot inierfere with such ^iatter of routine, as though ihey were ihe ^iorities substituting their oivn decisionfor \rnployee/inanagement as against such |d in the interest of adnunistrative \the service concefned. This position was this Coufi in Nati^nal Hisdr^clectric ^td. -Vs- Shri Bhagwan (20011 8 SCC ^ SP/FS/2005-20,000 \}-cnc| T<yi;qirt«^^-^|tt«|<S,Rlrtl^^ ITPR^?^aTTq? 3n^?TWft^J4> WTr^^TSRR? ^^1 3TT^$T'qRTc|?(^fgeTS) W1200 ^RITSn^rf^T OT^^T -s Leanied counsel for specific grounds bu the ba traiisfer of petitioner has l^ is vitiated for the said reas<| The.re is 110 disputej holdiiig a traiisferable post| that a departm-ental eiiqii|ry aa.d the saaie was complet^ petitioner was transferred There appears to be by the respondents. Leanied coiuisel for| this order has beea passed) In the facts aad circl to iaterfere ui the passedon 6.8.2004. The petition has no ConsequenUy, M.W.| for urgent heariiig also stati jthe petitioner cozild uot poiiit out any ifeis ofwliich it can be. assunied that tlie ^en affected by mala-fide and tlie saziie l»n. io. this aiatter that fhe petitioner is There is also no dispute al^out the fact i|ry was penduig agamst tiie petitioiier |:d on 14.7.2004 aad tliereafter only, the t-om Bhilai to Cheimai on 6.8.2004. Ino mala5.de iii the normal actioh taken <PI<4[cQ<Ill ^1+1<1)V^" fcv<£lKRlX-$IX ^SI^TSK^T -^ [tlie petitiouer could not pouit out that iti violation of any statiitor}? provision. lim.staiices ofthe case, I am not iacluied irapugtied order of traasfer of the petitioner Aierit. The same is disniissed 111 limiiie. 3.No.3927/2005 aad LA.No.8646/2005 sta|id disposed of. —— —— - — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000