WP (C) No. 7230/2009 Page 1 of 3 Unreportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7230/2009 % Decided on : 02.03.2009 UNION OF INDIA . . . Petitioner through : Mr. A. S. Dateer, Advocate VERSUS M. P. KUSHWAHA . . . Respondent through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of orders dated 27.8.2007 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby Tribunal has set aside the transfer order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the petitioner transferring the respondent from Delhi Division to Ferozpur Division. A short factual matrix transpires that the respondent was chargesheeted on 21.12.2004 on the charge that he had demanded and accepted Rs.8 excess from the decoy passengers and as per the inquiry the guilt of the respondent was proved. This resulted in imposition of major penalty of reduction of pay from Rs.6350/- to Rs.6050/- in the same time scale of Rs.5000-8000 for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appellate authority WP (C) No. 7230/2009 Page 2 of 3 reduced this punishment by two stages vide orders dated 9.8.2005. After this punishment, on 21.10.2005, the respondent was given the marching orders, i.e., transferring him from Delhi Division to Ferozpur Division. The respondent challenged his transfer as well as penalty imposed as a result of departmental proceedings held against him. 2. In so far as OA challenging transfer is concerned, it was disposed of vide orders dated 15.6.2006 permitting him to make a representation and directing the petitioner to consider the same. 3. Other OA no. 177/2006 vide which the respondent had challenged the penalty order has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29.9.2006 resulting in quashing the said penalty. Against this petitioner has filed writ petition No. 2128/07 which is still pending in this court. 4. The representation of the respondent against transfer having been rejected the respondent approached the Tribunal and filed OA 153/07 challenging the said orders which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.8.2007 and transfer orders quashed. The Tribunal has by reason of its aforesaid judgment recorded that inter divisional transfer are issued only in special contingencies, i.e., and when disciplinary proceedings are pending against the employee or when they are found to be of suspicious behaviour. However, in the present case, transfer orders were issued after the date of imposing penalty and therefore, it was colourable exercise of power. It also took note of the fact that in any case penalty order had been quashed by the Tribunal. 5. We, after hearing counsel for the parties, are of the opinion that no interference in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because of the following reasons: A. Admittedly transfer of the respondent was from one division to other and it is an interdivisional transfer. Though the WP (C) No. 7230/2009 Page 3 of 3 respondent was served by a charge sheet dated 21.12.2004, transfer orders in the first instance were issued only on 21.10.2005 that is much after the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and modified by the appellate authority. B. The said penalty has also been quashed and as of today the conduct of the respondent can be said to be blameworthy, which became cause for his transfer. Though writ petition against the order of the Tribunal quashing the penalty order is pending. Fact remains that the petitioners have implemented the orders of the Tribunal by giving him all the benefits and restoring the pay of the respondent which he was drawing before the imposition of penalty. C. During the pendency of the OA vide which the respondent had challenged the transfer orders, stay was granted to the respondent by the court and therefore he continued to serve in Delhi. Most importantly, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal dated 27.8.2007 and present writ petition is preferred one and half years thereafter. 6. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE March 02, 2009 rb