THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010 16th August, 2010. Between: B.V.SRIHARI RAO .. APPELLANT AND THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC) TOWER-II, JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING 124, INDIRA CHOWK, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010 O R D E R: (PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU) Writ court having declined interference with the impugned order of transfer, consequently this writ appeal, on the ground that when order of transfer was issued, the appellant was under suspension, therefore it is illegal, because transfer during suspension is impermissible. Undoubtedly appellant was placed under suspension in the background of his participation in a strike, resultantly disciplinary proceedings which were clinched by his removal from service. Said removal was questioned by medium of appeal before the Chairman/Managing Director of the Company who had referred the appeal to the Board. Board accepted the appeal, set aside the order of his removal and case was remitted to the disciplinary authority for enquiry, providing for his suspension and posting at Rajahmundry. Subsequently he was reinstated vide order dated 17-02-2009 and was attached to CBM East, Bokaro but he chose not to comply with it on the ground that in view of his placement by the Board at Rajahmundry during his suspension, the respondent lacks the power to transfer him. While the order of transfer was awaiting compliance, his suspension came to be revoked vide order dated 16-6- 2001, yet he chose not to join the duties and instead filed a writ petition on 6.9.2009, which was dismissed, inter alia, because of suppression of the fact, traceable to non-disclosure of the revocation of suspension in his writ petition which is evident from the fact that the order of suspension was not in force when order of transfer was issued, apparently challenge is untenable. That is the view, the learned single judge has taken and same being factually correct, the single judge cannot be said to have faltered in recording dismissal of the writ petition. Apart from that, order of transfer neither suffers from lack of jurisdiction nor malafides and does not violate the policy of transfer because policy provides transfer of office bearers as well. It needs to be placed on record that the learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked to advance if anything in his armoury to justify non compliance with the order of transfer without any interim direction from the writ court or this court to the contrary. He was reminded about the legal obligation that is cast upon the appellant to discharge his duties attached to the office. He was also reminded that failure to discharge his duties could visit him with penalties. Responding thereto, he pleaded lack of knowledge of revocation of suspension on the part of the appellant. Amazingly denial of knowledge is urged notwithstanding the fact that the order of revocation of suspension accompanies the counter of the respondents filed on 7.12.2009. In the given facts is it ipsi dixit of the appellant or what, we would like to refrain from expression of opinion because we are not dealing with the consequences of non-compliance of the order of the employer. Writ appeal having failed, permissibility or otherwise of the order of transfer during suspension has become academic, therefore we choose not to embark upon the contention. VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 16TH August, 2010. Nagesh babu THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010 O R D E R: (PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU) 16th August, 2010. This appeal arises out of the order dated 8-4-2010 declining interference with the order of transfer of the appellant from Rajahmundry to CBM- East, Bokaro. The case set out by the petitioner was mainly on the ground that the order of transfer could not be passed during the suspension. To appreciate the argument it will be appropriate to notice the background of the order of suspension which relates to participation of the petitioner in a strike giving raise to disciplinary proceeding resulting in removal of the petitioner from service, which became the subject matter of an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director of the company, which was ultimately referred to the Board. The appeal was accepted and the order of removal was set aside remitting the case to the disciplinary authority with a direction for completion of the enquiry as per the Rules and with further direction to place him under suspension and to stay at Rajahmundry as headquarters. By an order dated 17-02- 2009 he was attached to CBM East, Bokaro but he chose not to comply with it on the ground of incompetence of the authorities to transfer him. While the order of transfer was awaiting compliance his suspension came to be revoked vide order dated 16-6-2001, yet he chose not to join the duty, conversely he filed a writ on 6.9.2009, which was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of suppression traceable to non-disclosure of the revocation of suspension. Being aggrieved, therefore, this writ appeal. Having noticed that the order of suspension was revoked and the main ground challenged did not survive, the learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to how could he afford not to comply the direction without any interim order to the contrary was passed by the writ court, which was replied by him by lack of knowledge of the order on the part of the appellant. Amazingly denial of knowledge is urged notwithstanding the fact that the order of revocation accompanies the counter of the respondents filed on 7.12.2009 and the fact of the matter is that neither the writ court nor the appellate court permitted the appellant not to resume the duty and the notice speaks of too much highhandedness on his part. Although there is no explanation about his failure to resume the duties yet we would like to refrain from expression of opinion because we are not dealing with the consequences of his non-compliance of the order of the employer. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Admittedly, it is neither the case of lack of jurisdiction nor a case of malafides. It is also not violative of the policy of transfer because policy provides transfer of office bearers as well.