TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer orders were invalid under Rule 37 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV and Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules. (ii) Whether the use of the expression that the employees were undesirable required a prior departmental enquiry and rendered the transfer punitive.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer orders were invalid under Rule 37 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV and Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules.
Analysis: Rule 37 permits transfer of officials to any part of India in the interests of public service, subject to the conditions in the Fundamental Rules. Rule 15 does not prohibit transfer on the ground of inefficiency or misbehaviour. It only protects pay in the ordinary case and expressly recognises transfer in cases of inefficiency or misbehaviour and on written request. Transfer is an incident and condition of service, and judicial interference is unwarranted unless the order is shown to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory prohibition. The High Court erred in treating the transfer as impermissible merely because it involved an inter-division posting and possible service consequences.
Conclusion: The transfer orders were valid and the challenge under Rule 37 and Rule 15 failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the use of the expression that the employees were undesirable required a prior departmental enquiry and rendered the transfer punitive.
Analysis: The expression did not by itself convert the transfer into a punishment. A transfer made to maintain discipline and meet administrative exigencies may rest on prima facie satisfaction based on contemporary material, and does not require a full-fledged enquiry. The consequences ordinarily associated with punitive orders, such as dismissal, discharge, or reversion, are not present in an ordinary transfer. The alleged stigma therefore did not justify setting aside the order.
Conclusion: No prior departmental enquiry was required and the transfer was not punitive.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the transfer order was unsustainable, and the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made in public interest or administrative exigency will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory bar, and an order of transfer does not become punitive merely because it refers to misbehaviour or undesirability.
TaxTMI 
