IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 26463 of 2007 Between: Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rep. by its Director, Dr.V.Krishnamurthy S/o. V.Venkataratnam Aged about 58 years, R/o. Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr.Pallaki Nagesh, S/o.late P.Srinivas, Technical Officer (T-7/8), Central Tobacco Research Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Research Station, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2 The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Rep. by its Director General, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 3 Central Tobacco Research Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Research Station, Kandukur, Prakasam District, rep. by Head & Principal Scientist Sri A.R.Panda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to the passing of the order by Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.381/2007 dated 17.8.2007 and for a consequential order to quash the same, and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents : MS.K.M.J.D.SYAMA SUNDARI (SC FOR CG) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 26463 OF 2007 ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2007 in O.A. No.381 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the office order No.F.1(9)/2007-Adm.1, dated 08.05.2007, and memorandum No.F.1(9)/2007-Adm.1, dated 14.5.2007, were quashed. 2. The petitioner herein is second respondent, the first respondent herein is the applicant, and the respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 1 and 3 respectively, in the O.A. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.A. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The applicant was initially appointed as Senior Technical Assistant, T-4, in Central Tobacco Research Institute (for short, ‘CTRI’), on 12.10.1988, and in his appointment order itself, it has been clearly mentioned that the applicant was liable to be transferred to any of the research stations of CTRI. On the request made by the first respondent for inter-institutional transfer of CTRI, he was posted to CTRI Research Station, Kandukur. While working in Plant Breeding Section in that station, the first respondent was performing his duties without taking any responsibility, thereby caused enormous damage to nursery. The third respondent, out of prejudice against the applicant, issued memo F.No.1(10)/2006-07, dated 2.12.2006, alleging certain lapses in the work of the applicant pertaining to Plant Breeding Section. Basing on the report sent by the third respondent, the applicant has been transferred from Kandukur to Hunsur, Karnataka state, vide impugned order dated 8.5.2007. The applicant alleged mala fides against the third respondent, who is Head & Principal Scientist, CTRI, Kandukur. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. The respondents filed counter in the O.A. denying all the allegations and stating that the memo was issued indicating the lapses committed by the applicant, but it has nothing to do with the transfer which is effected on administrative exigencies, and that there was no mala fide intention to transfer the applicant from Kandukur to Hunsur. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the O.A. 6. The Tribunal held that there was no administrative exigency in transferring the applicant from Kandukur to Hunsur, and the decision to transfer the applicant was taken on the basis of the recommendation of the third respondent and without application of mind, and set aside the transfer order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not the third respondent, who effected the transfer, and it is purely an administrative transfer and no mala fides are attributed against the transferring authority. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. None appeared for the first respondent, inspite of service of notice. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the contentions of the petitioner. 9. There cannot be any dispute that unless the transfer is contrary to the Rules governing the transfers, or the person who effected the transfer has no jurisdiction, or mala fides are attributed to the transferring authority, normally the Tribunal or Court will not interfere with the orders of the transfer, if they are made on administrative grounds. It seems the third respondent issued a memo dated 2.12.2006 indicating the lapses committed by the applicant. He also stated to have submitted a list of members required for redeployment, to the second respondent. It is not in dispute before this Court that the Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research, New Delhi i.e. the first respondent, is the transferring authority. It is not the case of the applicant that his transfer from Kandukur to Husnur is contrary to Rules governing the transfers. It is also not the case of the applicant that the firs respondent has no jurisdiction to effect the transfer. 10. The only ground on which the applicant seeks to set aside the transfer order is that basing on the report submitted by third respondent, the transfer was effected. It seems the third respondent issued a memo dated 2.12.2006 for some lapses committed by the applicant. 11. The third respondent appeared in person before the Tribunal and argued the case submitting that had he entertained any mala fide on his part, he should not have given ‘Good/very good’ in the AARs to the applicant, and that the memo was issued to improve the performance of the applicant and it has nothing to do with the transfer. He also stated that the committee has decided the transfer and the third respondent is not a member of the committee. He stated that he gave the minimum requirement of manpower to concerned authority, as per letter dated 7.3.2007. Therefore, there is no basis for the applicant to arrive at a conclusion that the transfer was effected basing on the recommendations of the third respondent. The said letter dated 7.3.2007 does not form part of the record in the O.A. The letter only deals with the minimum requirement of manpower at Kandukur. 12. The impugned order No.F.1(9)/2007. Adm.1, dated 08.05.2007 reads as follows: “Based on the recommendations of Institute Transfer Committee, CTRI, Rajahmundry and keeping in view the requirement of Technical Staff for The Research Stations, located at Hunsur, Kandukur & BTRC, Jeddangi, the availability of Technical Staff and the need to ensure smooth functioning of the Research Programmes, the Director, CTRI, Rajahmundry is pleased to transfer the following Technical Staff to the places as indicated below against their names. S.No. Name & designation From To 1. Dr.P.Nagesh, Technical Officer T-(7-8) CTRI RS, Kandukur CTRI RS, Hunsur 2. Sri B.Raja Rao Technical Officer T- 5 CTRI, Rajahmundry BTRC, Jeddangi 3 Sri I.JagadishChandra Techl. Officer T-6 Crop Protec- tion, CTRI, Rajahmundry CTRI RS, Kandukur 4 Sri T.Venkat Rao, Techn. T-2 CTRI RS, Kandukur CTRI RS, Hunsur Since the transfers are made in public interest, the above Officials (Technical Staff) are eligible for TTA and Joining Time as per rules. This Office Order comes into force with immediate effect.” 13. As seen from the impugned order dated 08.05.2007, the applicant along with 3 more officers, was transferred from one place to another. It is also clear from the said order that the CTRI, Rajahmundry recommended for transfer of the applicant along with 3 others. 14. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that it is purely on administrative exigency i.e. for smooth functioning of the research programmes, the Director, CTRI ordered for the transfer of the technical staff to the place indicated against each of the officers. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the transfer of the applicant was effected basing on the recommendation of the third respondent. When the third respondent was not admittedly a member of the committee effecting transfers, and in the absence of any mala fides attributed to the committee, the impugned orders before the Tribunal, need not be quashed. 15. On the sole ground that the transfer has been effected without hearing the applicant and without application of mind, the impugned order has been set aside by the Tribunal. The question of hearing the applicant or application of mind, before effecting transfer does not arise, especially when the appointment order would clearly indicate that he is liable to be transferred to all research centers in the country. This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal, and came to wrong conclusion. The guiding factors, which are required to be seen in the case of transfer, have not at all been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 16. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the order dated 17.08.2007 in O.A. No.381 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, there shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA -------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU .03.2008. DRK To 1 Dr.Pallaki Nagesh, S/o.late P.Srinivas, Technical Officer (T-7/8), Central Tobacco Research Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Research Station, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2 The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Rep. by its Director General, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 3 Central Tobacco Research Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Research Station, Kandukur, Prakasam District, rep. by Head & Principal Scientist Sri A.R.Panda. 4. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}