1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.262/2010 Manoj Kumar Garg vs LIC of India & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for the the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the transfer order dated 26th Dec, 2009 by which he has been transferred from Ganganagar office to Nawa City in Kuchaman City. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all it has been done only because of the malafides which is clear from the voluminous documentary evidence which is placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied with certain documents in spite of the several representations. Even the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint wherein documents were summoned and against which order, a revision petition was filed and that revision petition was also dismissed. The petitioner then was harassed while giving some absolutely wrong objections and copy of these communications have been placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that while working at particular place, the petitioner has developed a 2 team and there is financial limit within which he has to maintain the expenses so as to benefit the LIC and because of the transfer he will have to develop a new team for which he may have to incur huge expenses and if petitioner will not be able to maintain the expenses limit then even his services can be terminated. It is also submitted that petitioner's agents have also been threatened so they may detach from the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record copy of one of the complaint submitted by one Shyam Lal which was submitted to the Central Vigilance Commissioner alleging certain serious allegations against the Branch Managers and Assistant Administrative Officer. In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 26.12.2009 is passed absolutely malafiedly and that limit is to the extent that ultimately, the petitioner's services may be terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (1997) 6 SCC 169 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the transfer order and passed the stricture against the action of the State Government with direction to the Chief Secretary of the State to take appropriate action against the person responsible. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Narpat Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 WLR (Vol.1) 136 in support of his contention that the transfer order can be quashed when a case of malafide is made out. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It appears that petitioner had no good relations with his employer and it ultimately resulted into lodging of criminal cases wherein certain orders were passed and, thereafter, the revision petition was filed. From the order passed by the criminal court on 24th June, 2006 it appears that criminal complaint was lodged under Sections 409, 420, 425, 467 and 468 IPC. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner after taking instruction from the petitioner that said complaint is pending in the court below. It will be appropriate to consider the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in the cases of (i) Arvind Dattatraya Dhande (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the facts of the case observed that ln view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a 4 case of victimisation of a honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Here in this case, the criminal complaints are pending, which have been lodged by the petitioner as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. There are serious allegations and counter allegations and at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is being victimized by issuing this transfer order dated 26.12.2009. Simply because one employee has raised a complaint against the employer or has lodged several complaints against the employer or has initiated criminal cases against the employer itself cannot be made to become any sealed against any order of transfer of an employee. It is true that malafides can be gathered from the facts and the surrounding circumstances, but in this case, I do not find that any case of malafide has been made out because the petitioner may have developed an impression that because of this reason of his lodging criminal complaints he has been transferred. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner will have to develop a new team of his agents to achieve the target by keeping the limit of expenses is concerned, that is the duty of the petitioner if so is provided by the guidelines. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner 5 vehemently submitted that for Development Officer of the LIC, Special Rules have been framed under Rule 17 of the LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009. In these Rules, there is no provision providing for transfer of Development Officer and, therefore, the general rule under the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing power of transfer cannot be invoked for transfer of Development Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in these rules, various provisions have been made including providing for termination of services of Development Officer in certain cases as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2009 as well as providing rules providing table of expense limit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner after coming into force of the Rules of 2009, the general Rules of 1960 cannot be invoked. The Rules of 2009 very specifically provides “revision of certain terms and conditions of service”. These rules are not exhaustive rules and these Rules of 2009 are only making revision of certain terms and condition of service of Development Officer. In the Rules of 2009 no provision for transfer by the employer is there and that power is under the Rules of 1960 then Rules of 2009 are not in conflict of 6 Rules of 1960. Otherwise also, the Rules of 2009 is not in conflict with the general rules because the Rules of 2009 are framed for the purpose covered under the rules and are not taking away the powers given in the General Rules once the subjects which are not covered under Rules of 2009. In view of the above reasons so far as power of employer to transfer an employee specifically given in Rules of 1960 shall remain intact. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-