2020 (11) TMI 1107 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition challenging transfer order dismissed by High Court, upholding Tribunal decision.

N.R.S. Ganesan Versus Union of India, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a transfer order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. Despite the petitioner's ... Transfer of Member-Judicial in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from Chennai Bench to Jabalpur - Interim order declining the grant of interim stay of operation of the order of transfer - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in a fair and proper manner. The materials placed before this Court would prima facie disclose that the petitioner had served in and around Chennai for quite numbers of years and insofar as his present posting is concerned, he was posted at Chennai on 26.03.2015, and before the impugned order, he has served in the place for five years. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to canvass the merits of his case which is pending before the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to it for the reason that any finding/observation given in this writ petition may affect his case pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the light of the well settled legal position as enunciated in various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that apart, the Tribunal has also exercised its discretion in a fair and proper manner in declining to grant interim stay of operation of the order of transfer, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the same. Issues:Challenge to order of transfer, grant of interim relief, legality of order passed by Tribunal, retention at Chennai, lack of basic infrastructure at Jabalpur, care-giver responsibilities, grounds for challenging transfer, exercise of discretion by Tribunal.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the order of transfer issued by the 2nd respondent and sought interim relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai. The Tribunal, in its order dated 18.03.2020, found the transfer to be in the public interest and declined to grant interim relief, stating no prima facie case was made out despite allegations of mala fide. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the Tribunal's decision. The High Court considered the petitioner's plea regarding caring for a mentally ill brother and pending representation for removal of the transfer order. The Court allowed the petitioner to conduct proceedings through video conferencing as Member-Judicial, Jabalpur Bench, considering his personal circumstances and the pending representation.The petitioner, a Member-Judicial at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, argued for retention at Chennai due to caregiving responsibilities and his impending superannuation. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the accommodation of other Members who served in the same station for years, advocating for similar treatment. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General of India pointed out the petitioner's prior postings and the choice given before the transfer to Jabalpur. It was argued that the petitioner had taken his mentally ill brother to various postings, and retention at Chennai was not justified. The legal position on challenging transfers based on punitive or mala fide grounds was emphasized, with the respondent urging dismissal of the writ petition.The High Court examined the submissions and materials before it, noting the petitioner's service history around Chennai and the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the transfer order. While the petitioner's counsel tried to argue the merits of the case pending before the Tribunal, the Court refrained from delving into it to avoid prejudicing the ongoing proceedings. Citing established legal principles and the Tribunal's fair exercise of discretion in denying interim relief, the High Court held that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was unwarranted, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition and vacation of the interim order.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim order, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions. It clarified that the decision did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it for the Tribunal to adjudicate. The Court upheld the Tribunal's exercise of discretion and refrained from interfering in the transfer order, emphasizing the legal principles governing challenges to such administrative decisions.