HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.18601 of 2009 Date: April 8, 2010 Between: B.V. Srihari Rao, S/o.B. Narasimha Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Superintending Geologist, ONGC, Rajahmundry, R/o.B2-11, ONGC Colony, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District … Petitioner And The Chairman and Managing Director, The Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), Tower-II, Jeevan Bharati Building, 124, Indira Chowk, New Delhi – 110 001, and 2 others … Respondents Order: Though interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, at the request of learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is being disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner herein, a Superintending Geologist in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), questioned order, dated 29-01-2009, passed in proceedings No.O- DHR/D&A/16/2008-09, and, also, order, dated 17-02- 2009, passed, in proceedings No.DDN/CE/GEOL/AT- 2009, by the third respondent-Chief Manager (HR), ONGC, transferring his services from Rajahmundry to CBM East Bokaro. 3. The petitioner is a Superintending Geologist working in ONGC at its Rajamundry asset, wherein he has completed about eight years of service. The executive class employees of ONGC are members of Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO). The ASTO issued a strike notice on 22-12-2008 proposing to go on strike from 25-01-2009. Based on the same, the petitioner, being the President of ASTO of Rajahmundry unit, also intimated his resolve to go on strike from 07-01- 2009 and addressed letter dated 24-12-2008 to the Asset Manager of Rajahmundry unit. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, declared service in the oil field as a public utility service. In spite of such declaration, when the aforesaid strike notice was issued by the present unit and other units, a suit was filed by ONGC in O.S.No.2212 of 2008 before the High Court of Delhi. By order dated 20-12-2008, the High Court of Delhi granted injunction in favour of ONGC, and directed ASTO and other affiliated bodies not to go on strike. Pursuant to the aforesaid strike notice issued by ASTO, they proceeded with the strike from 07-01-2009 to 09-01-2009. In view of participation in the strike by the petitioner and other persons, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the disciplinary authority, by order dated 08-01-2009, in exercise of powers under ONGC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994, passed an order removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the company, which was ultimately referred to the Board. The Board, having considered the matter and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he shall not instigate or participate in any strike, while setting aside the order of removal from service, ordered to continue him under suspension. By further order dated 17-02-2009, as per the transfer policy, the services of the petitioner were transferred from Rajahmundry to CBM East Bokaro. 4. The petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 29-01-2009 alleging that similar orders of removal were passed against all the 64 members of ASTO, and appeals of 56 members were allowed and they were reinstated, but, only against 8 members, including him, disciplinary action is continued, by continuing them under suspension. Further order dated 17-02-2009, transferring the services of the petitioner from Rajahmundry to CBM East Bokaro, is also questioned on the ground that the same is contrary to order dated 29-01-2009. It is stated that while continuing the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was asked to continue at Rajahmundry, but, contrary to the said order, order dated 17-02-2009 is passed, transferring his services. It is also stated that as the petitioner is an officer of ASTO, as such, he is not to be transferred outside the unit so long as he continues as an office-bearer of ASTO. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of ONGC. In the counter affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has completed 8 years of service at Rajahmundry asset. It is stated that vide notification dated 04-11-2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, declared “services in any oil field” as a public utility service. Further, referring to the order of the High Court of Delhi, it is stated that the petitioner, in gross disobedience of the said order, proceeded on strike, which resulted in economic loss to the tune of approximately Rs.255 crores. It is stated that all the efforts made by the management as well as the initiative taken Hon’ble Prime Minister to persuade ASTO not to resort to illegal strike and cause inconvenience to the general public and loss to the economy as a whole went in vain due to the adamant and defiant approach adopted by the office bearers of ASTO. It is further stated that in view of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, he was removed from service along with other office-bearers of ASTO and after receipt of orders of removal dated 08-01-2009, the petitioner, on his own vacated the quarter allotted to him at Rajahmundry and handed over keys to the Estate Officer by signing quarter-handing over letter dated 11-11-2009. It is further stated that after calling off the strike, the petitioner submitted appeal dated 12-01-2009 to the Chairman and Managing Director and also filed an undertaking that he shall not instigate or participate in any strike in future. Likewise, all the remaining 63 office- bearers of ASTO filed appeals and as the problem pertains to entire ONGC and number of executives were involved, matters were referred to the Board and the Board members in their 187th meeting held on 28-01- 2009, authorized the executive committee to take a decision in the appeals. It is stated that having regard to the seriousness of the charges against the working President and two Vice-Presidents, the appellate authority directed to place them under suspension and subject to such condition, allowed the appeals by order dated 29-01-2009. With reference to the disciplinary proceedings, it is stated that enquiry was completed and enquiry report dated 03-11-2009 was submitted. It is further stated that as per the transfer policy of the company, all the executives at the level of E.1 to E.4 who have completed more than five years in a sector/station shall be liable for transfer and the petitioner, an E.4 level executive, who has competed eight years at Rajahmundry was liable to be transferred. It is stated that even after availing three extensions and maximum period permissible for relieving, the petitioner did not join at the new place of posting. It is further stated that consequent upon relieving the petitioner from Rajahmundry asset on 15-05-2009, all his personal files were sent to the new place of posting. The counter affidavit further states that there is no violation of retention and transfer policy as the petitioner has continued for more than years at Rajahmundry. A reference is made in the counter affidavit stating that ASTO was de-recognized by order dated 13- 06-2009; in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot contend that he is still a member of ASTO, for continuing him at Rajahmundry. 6. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was discriminated, as much as others who are similarly placed were reinstated into service; but disciplinary proceedings were continued against the petitioner, by continuing him under suspension. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is an office-bearer of ASTO; as such, as per the transfer policy, the transfer of the petitioner from Rajahmundry is illegal. 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri E. Manohar, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the order of the appellate authority was passed on 29-01-2009 and subsequently in view of the transfer policy, as the petitioner completed five years at Rajahmundry, he was transferred to CBM East Bokaro, 17-02-2009. It is further submitted that after removal from service, the petitioner, on his own, vacated the quarter allotted to him at Rajahmundry and handed over keys to the Estate Officer by signing quarter-handing over letter dated 11-11-2009. However, suppressing the same, he obtained interim orders and illegally entered into the quarter. Learned counsel further submits that after transfer order dated 17-02-009, from time to time, the petitioner sought to extend the date of relieving from the previous station, upto 15-05-2009 and even thereafter, did not join the new place of posting and nearly after more than 8 months after transfer, he filed the present this writ petition. 9. It is to be seen that in spite of the notification issued by the Government declaring “services in any oil field” as a public utility service, the petitioner, along with other similarly placed persons, resorted to strike, causing huge loss to the organization, which was estimated to the tune of Rs.255 crores. It is also to be seen that the High Court of Delhi granted injunction orders in the suit filed by ONGC, prohibiting the petitioner and others to go on strike. In spite of the same, in deviation of the said orders, strike is resorted to. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner was removed from service, but considering the appeal filed, along with the undertaking furnished by him, to the effect that he will not indulge in any such activities in future, the executive committee of the company considered the same and set aside the order of removal, but continued the suspension so far as the petitioner and 7 others are concerned. Reasons for continuing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and 7 others have been explained in the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any discrimination has been shown against the petitioner, in violation of his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, merely because in the order of appellate authority, headquarters was mentioned as Rajahmundry, that will not preclude the respondents-management to take steps to transfer its employees on administrative exigencies, as per the transfer policy. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued in Rajahmundry for more than 5 years and as per the job retention and transfer policy, respondents are empowered to transfer its employees. It is also to be noted that in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, enquiry report is already submitted. Even after passing of the order of transfer dated 17-02-2009, the petitioner has not approached this court immediately and on his request, from time to time, relieving date was extended upto 15-05-2009, by the respondents. In spite of the same, without joining at the place of posting, the petitioner approached this court belatedly. Though the suspension order was revoked in the month of January, 2009 itself, the petitioner did not mention the same in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The affidavit is also silent with regard to letter of handing-over possession of the quarter, which was in occupation of the petitioner, at Rajahmundry. Suppressing the fact of handing-over the quarter, he obtained interim orders to continue him in the quarter, as if he had not vacated the same. I have perused the retention and transfer policy, which makes it clear that the impugned order is not in violation of any of the clauses of the said policy. Further, it is stated ASTO was already de- recognized by the company. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to continue further at Rajahmundry asset. The legal position has been crystallized in number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. No employee as a matter of right can seek continuance at a particular place/station for an indefinite period. Having regard to administrative exigencies, and the policy notified by the employer, it is always open for the employer to effect transfers, as per the requirements. In these circumstances, I see no discrimination meted out to the petitioner and it cannot also be said that his transfer is in violation of the policy notified. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 8, 2010 MRR