-'t W,s.s-f:n. ?liS'~tit?( SfflSi&'S^^"" IN THE HIGH COUfiT OF JUDICATBRE AT BILASPUR (CG) WRITPETITION N0. 2&lz1- OF 2004 BETHEEN Devendra Kumar sharma S/o Late Shri Ishwari prasad Sbarma, aged about 48 years, occupation senior security guard, Central store Office, s.E.C.L. Korba, Resident of pump Hoase, Korba (CG) . ^y ^f/ <^y <^y ^w d!? \ X PETITIONER A N D 'y'A.-' ./^^ .^^/ y South Eastern Coalfield Iiimj-ted.throagh its Director (personnel), s.E.C.lj. Bilaspur,Tehsxl and District Bilaspar (CG). Chief security Off.Lcer.s.E.C.L. , Head Quarter Bilaspur, Tehsil and Dlstrict Bilaspur (CG). RESPOBDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER &KTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITtJ'CTON OF INDIA HIGIiCQURTJUDICATURE^AT BILASPUR (C.G) -^^ WRIT PETITION N0:3814 OF 2004 Devendra Kuiaar Shanna Vs. South Eastem Coal Fields Ltd., aad aaother Snit. Indira Tnpathi, Couiisel for fhe petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, Couiiselforthe icspondents. ORDBR (11,01.2005) Wifh the consent ofthe parties, heard finally. (2) By this petition filed under Article 226/227 ofthe Constututkin of India, the petitionerhas chaUenged^the validityi oforder dated 31.5.2004 (Aaiiexure P-3) by which he has been traiisferred froni SECL Establishinent at Korba to tJamiia Kottaa. He has also chaUenged tlie validity of order djated 27.9.2004^ (Aruiexure P-S) which is an. order passed on representation dated 09.09.2004. Adm.ittedly, the petitioner is woridng Qn fhe Post of ChiefSecurity Guard. His ^name t appears at Serial No.4 ia ffae iiapugned order dated 31.5.'2Q04. (3) The facts of the case are that fhe petitioner jwas transferred vMe order dated 31.5.2004 (Aiuiexure P-3) lran^,i S.E.C.L. Korba to S.E.G.L.iJauuia Kotnia; After receiKtBglittig^ said order, !the petitioiier e|Latlienged.its yaluiity 'by,fili:iigi^ij^|ijj|||j| petifiou vide W.P.No. 24I©j(2Q04.!1>he saidj pettSonci SHI II hi'! 1-- UiaUMiy heanng before this Coiu-t on 20.8.2004 aad fhe same was disposed of wifh a direction ftiat fhe petitioner shaU Bnake a detafled representatioa before fhe coinpetent aufhority' aad the competent authority shaU consider and decide the sauie on its owu nierits ia accordance with law preferably withia six weeks from. the date ofreceipt/productionoficpresentation. It was also directed that ifaay contravention ofpoUcy or guideluies is brought to the notice, fhe same be considered on its own inerits. (4) It appears that after passing of the said order, fhe petitioner ffled a representation on 09.9.2004. The said reprcsentatioa was consMered by the conipetent aufhority and fhe impugned order dated 27.9.2004 (Acinexurc P-5) hasbeen passed. Siaee fhe competent aufhority rejected ftie afpresaid representation of fhe petitioner, now the petitioner has coule up before this Court ia fhe second round. (5) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat e^ea before passing ofthe order oftraasfer, the petitioner had giveit ari appUcation fhat he is gettuig soine treatmeat iu. Gewxaiiand his son aged about 12 years is also under treatineDft Arthritis, fhfirefore, he should be traiisferrcd in Gevra area.1: She furtber subinits fhat even after fhis applicatioit pf'ipi trausfer date, fhe aufhoritiesidid ndt transfer liita to Qevra!ja^i(t he has beeii traiisferred to Jamna Kotiaa. i She alsd stibSilits that accoid.tBg to the ircipugiied ciFdep (Aimexure iPj-3)jiiiia|i}'>| : ••.^':'';;'U:iSil^ll''t'^'j'li ^ persons have^teeen. transfeTceffl'to ^GsVra &QiIi i3i reii;t|iila@^| •t.' _i[xr^i,rvh;fh^Tie^tinrier;<^n1i^^ !':'";;r^" ;:li.:'i!. -^ - itnportaat t0 inention about this fact here fhat the copy of rcpresentation dated 09.09.2004, referred to iu the order (Aimexure P-5) has not been filed on record. Therefore, this Court is unable to fmd out as to what grounds were raised by the petitioner before flie coiiipeteiit aufhority. (6) After bare perusal ofthe order (Aanexure P-5) it appears fhat the conipetent aufhonty has exaiiuiied tlie representation of the petitioner in Ught of the insb-uctions of Ceatral VigUaace Coiirmission, Goveminent of India. It is held by fhe authority fhat uiider fhe aforesaid iastructions of Ceatral Vigilance Deparfaient only 134 security personnel have beeii tran.sferred to different places aad the trausferis not ui iafiingeirient ofany poUcy framed by the South Eastera Coalfields Liinited. (7j Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out as to how fhe transfer is bad ia law and which of fhe policy was infiiaged by fhe departaient while traasferring the petitioner. The law in relation to consideratioa of orders of traasfer is now weU settled. The apex Court while dealuig wifh ttie inatter of Kenelriiia Vldiia Sctnghatdn -Vs- Demweteir Prcisdd Paiulesi reported ia 2004 AIS SCW PQ.SS63 referrmg to the various decisions has observedvide para 4 as foUows: | "Trausfer wbich is an. iacidenCel of seivice is not to be iuterfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitraiyor visi^ted by inalafide or iiifraction of any prescnbed no4ms of prmciples gtivenitug fbe transfe /SeeAm.Eiiwu i i 111 KaTCtaRc^-Vs-StateofOTissa^l995(Supp1}^^C 169). Unlessfbeorderoftraasferis | vlti^d by rnala fide or is iliafie ru violatioii of opeia(tve guidelmcs, fhe (poiirf Gauaot luterfeTe with. BK|(^ee Union ofJhda ^,;S.£;l:A as,:A.K^99,3||s®||^lt%^' Wtao: sIiQuld^be:i-traasferTed aiui |posted|-fl|iire|^:|aJ-|] :<i' »F ^ niatter for the adirurdstrative authori.tv to decide. Unless the order oftransfer is vitiated by inala fide or is niade ia violation ofoperative any guidelines or rules fbe Courts should not orduiarily interfere wifhit la Union of India & olhers—Vs-Janardan Debanath & anr. (2004)4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows: "No Govemiaertt servant or einployee of a pubUc undertaJkia.g bas any legal right to be posted forever at any oae particular place or place of his choice siuce teansfer of a particular eiaployee appoiated to fhe class or catego^ oftransferable posts Irom one place to aiiother is not only aa incident, but a conditiDn of service, necessary too in public iaterest and efficiency in the public adiaiaistration. Unless an. order of traasfer is shown to be an outcoiue ofinala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutoly provisions prohibiting aay such trausfer, the Courts or fhe Tnbunals nonuaUy camiot iaterfere with such orders as amatterofroutine,as though they were the appeUate autUorities substituting their own decision for fhat of the einployer/inanagexuent, as agaiiist such orders passed ia fhe uiterpst of adinuustrative exigencies of tbe service concemed. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectnc Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8SCC 574". (8) In ligbt of above observations aad fhe pnaciples enuuierated in various judicial pronounceiaents of fhe Court, now it is clear fhat the transfer which is an incide Apex of incidence service can only be iaterfered with when tbe same is shown to be arbitrary or lualafide br passed ia iufi-action af aay picscribed nonns ofprinciples goveniiug ttie trausfers. jlfthe guideluies are properiy foUowed and fhe traasfer is ile:tther mala&de rior arbitraiy aud it does not infiiiige auy nght|of fhe einployee, the saiue caruiot be iaterfei'ed by fb.e Goujrts iu. routinfi. Tbc case wouMiliayel'been differeuffy govemgdj ivttieil il r4- -s fhe einployee clauns fhat he was workiag on a non-trajusferable post and fhe trausfer was not aa iucideace of his service. (9) Applying fhe aforesaid pniiciples in the present case, it seeins that fhe petitioner has chaUenged the transfer on his personal grounds only. No ground of inala fides or arbitraryaess or violation of nonns of traasfer Iiave been raised. The order oftraasfer is also a general traasfer order. Such oriers camiot be set aside or iaterfered with bv fhe Courts ou personal grounds. In fhe opiaion of fhis Court, the aufhority has nghUy rejected tbe represeatation of fhe petitioner by testing its coinpetency on fhe touch stprie ofthe guideltues and instructions and 110 iD.terference is required in the same. A person working in fhe security section whicU iu fact is other than a civU post carries inore responsibUity f4an working in fhe general civfl services. Their postiags are aiade ui accordaace wifh the security orieated necessity of the departnient. Their cases catuiot be viewed by gerifiral eye. | In fhe opirdon of this Cozirt, even rejectioa of the represeiitation caanot be said to be iUegal or arbitraiy. The petition has no nierit aud is dismissed. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.4224/2004 staads disposed of, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge