1973 (11) TMI 80 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds transfer despite rule violation; no fundamental rights infringed.

EP. ROYAPPA Versus STATE OF TN. & ANR.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from Chief Secretary to Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission, and later to ... Whether the petitioner was appointed to the substantive post of Chief Secretary to the state ate of Tamil Nadu? Held that:- In the present case, it appears that the petitioner gave advice in course of duty. The Government practically in all cases accepted the advice of the petitioner. There does not appear any instance of acrimony or disagreement between the Government and the petitioner. There are no records to suggest that the petitioner advised one way and the Government acted in an opposite manner. The events alleged at the time of the elections are in aid of the petitioner's contention that his dealing of the law and order situation was so firm that the Chief Minister and other members of his party became alienated. The petitioner suggested that the Chief Minister and the members of his party were responsible for introducing violence and intimidation. The further suggestion of the petitioner is that the petitioner exposed the activities of the D.M.K. Party. Complaints against the D.M.K. Party were like complaints against other political parties. The affidavit evidence, indicates that the law and order situation was kept under normal'control. All the officers of the State including the police service discharged, their duty in the best interest of administration 'as also 'in public interest. The petitioner did not achieve anything extraordinary. As the Chief Secretary it was the duty of the petitioner to see that situation nowhere went out of control. The Chief Minister and the members of his party cannot be said on the affidavit evidence to have committed acts of violence or intimidation. The entire affidavit evidence establishes beyond any measure of doubt that the petitioner's allegations imputing malafides against the Chief Minister are baseless. The petitioner's allegations were in aid of suggesting vindictiveness and vengeance on part of the Chief 'Minister Facts' and circumstances repel any such insinuation and innuendo. For these reasons the contentions of the petitioner fail. The petition is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the petitioner's transfer under the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954.2. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.3. Alleged mala fide exercise of power by the respondents.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Petitioner's Transfer:The petitioner challenged his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary to Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission, and later to Officer on Special Duty, arguing it violated the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The petitioner contended that the posts to which he was transferred were not validly created cadre posts and lacked a declaration of equivalence in status and responsibility to a cadre post as required under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The Court found that the State Government failed to make a proper declaration of equivalence for the posts of Deputy Chairman and Officer on Special Duty, thus violating Rule 9(1). However, the Court did not grant relief based on this ground as it did not involve infringement of any fundamental right.2. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16:The petitioner argued that his transfer was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the posts of Deputy Chairman and Officer on Special Duty were inferior in status and responsibility to that of Chief Secretary. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the posts were inferior in status and responsibility. The Court emphasized that the post of Chief Secretary is highly sensitive and requires rapport with the Chief Minister. The transfer was not arbitrary or discriminatory as it was made in the larger interests of administration. The Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16.3. Alleged Mala Fide Exercise of Power:The petitioner alleged that his transfer was motivated by the Chief Minister's hostility and malus animus due to various incidents where the petitioner acted against the interests of the Chief Minister and his associates. The Court noted that the burden of proving mala fides is heavy and requires a high degree of proof. The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish mala fides on the part of the Chief Minister. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof and dismissed the allegations of mala fide exercise of power.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's transfer did not violate the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court also found no evidence of mala fide exercise of power by the respondents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.