Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Dr. (Ms) Padmashir Shriram ... on 17 December, 2014
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9781 OF 2014
1 State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
(Housing Department),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032
2 The Principal Secretary (Revenue)
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032
3 The Divisional Commissioner,
Konkan Division, Konkan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai-400 614 ... Petitioners
vs.
1 Dr.(Ms.)Padmashri Shriram Bainade,
Deputy Collector, EGS Alibag,
Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra,
Pin-401 206
2 Shri Hiralal Sonwane
Additional Collector, Mumbai Suburbs,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051
3 Shri Upendra Tamore,
Deputy Director, Food & Civil Supplies,
Office of the Supply Commissioner,
Having office at Fort,
Presently posted as Deputy Collector,
Mumbai 400 001 .. Respondents
Mr. S.U. Kamdar,Senior Advocate with Mr. R.R. Shetty and Mr. P.G.
Sawant, AGP for the petitioners.
1/26
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2014 23:47:40 :::
dgm 2 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar with Mr. Sagar Mane I/by Mr. B. V.
Bandiwadekar for respondent No.1.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : December 09, 2014
PRONOUNCED ON: December 17, 2014
JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
parties.
2 The Petitioners (The State) have challenged Judgment
dated 13 October 2014 passed by Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal) in Original Application No.839 of 2014,
by which a mid-term transfer order dated 30 August 2014 issued by
the State has been set aside.
3 The basic events of the case are as under:-
On 16 august 2014, a letter proposing Respondent No.1's
(the employee) transfer was submitted to the Principal Secretary,
Housing Department. On 19 August 2014, the Under Secretary,
dgm 3 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
Housing Department submitted a note proposing transfer of
Respondent No.1. On 19 August 2014, the Deputy Secretary, Housing
Department approved the note. On 20 August 2014, the file reached
the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and on the same date, it was
approved. On 21 August 2014, the file came back to the Principal
Secretary, Housing Department. On 22 August 2014, the Principal
Secretary, Housing Department sent Office Note to the Deputy
Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department informing the decision to
transfer and requested for action. On 30 August 2014, the transfer
order was issued. An independent note was moved by the Deputy
Secretary, Revenue Department seeking modification/cancellation of
the transfer order in view of letter of request received from the Chief
Election Commissioner. The suggestion contained in the note was
declined.
4 The transfer order issued by the Petitioner-State is as
under:-
"Repatriated
Repatriation of Smt. Padmashree Bainade,
Dy. Collector (Enc/Rem) Colaba Mumbai
in her parent department.
dgm 4 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
Dated 30th August, 2014.
Government Order:-
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 4(4) &
4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers
and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005,
deputation of Smt. Padmaja Bainade, Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem)
Colaba Mumbai has been terminated and she is repatriated.
Additional Collector Mumbai City to relieve Smt. Padmaja
Bainade, Deputy Collector to join in her parent department.
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division is hereby
authorized to give appointment to Smt. Padmaja Bainade, Dy. Collector.
By the order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."
It is clear that the State has invoked Maharashtra Government
Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge
of Official Duties Act, 2005 ("the Act") but plain reading of the order
shows it was intended order of repatriation by termination her
services as Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem), Colaba, Mumbai. The State
has invoked the Act, for repatriation, but intended mid term transfer.
The State has invoked wrong provisions for wrong purpose and passed
the vague, un-based, inconsistent and unreasoned mid-term transfer
order. This act not only deals and regulates transfers, but also various
other aspects of service of Government servants, official duties and
responsibilities of the concerned authorities, covering "transfer" and
"disciplinary action". Relevant sub sections 4(4) & 4(5) of the Act
dgm 5 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
reads as under :-
4 (1) ......
(2).......
(3).......
(4) The transfers of Government servants shall
ordinarily be made only once in a year in the month of
April or May :
Provided that, transfer may be made any time in
the year in the circumstances as specified below, namely:-
(i) to the newly created post or to the posts
which become vacant due to retirement, promotion,
resignation, reversion, reinstatement, consequential
vacancy on account of transfer or on return from
leave;
(ii) where the competent authority is satisfied
that the transfer is essential due to exceptional
circumstances or special reasons, after recording the
same in writing and with the prior approval of the
next higher authority.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3
or this section, the competent authority may, in special
cases, after recording reasons in writing and with the
prior approval of the immediately superior Transferring
Authority mentioned in the table of section 6, transfer a
Government servant before completion of his tenure of
post."
5 Section 10 of the Act is relevant for the present purpose
and is reproduced as under :
"10. (1) Every Government servant shall be bound to
discharge his official duties and the official work assigned or
dgm 6 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
pertaining to him most diligently and as expeditiously as
feasible :
Provided that, normally no file shall remain pending
with any Government servant in the Department or office for
more than seven working days :
Provided further that, immediate and urgent file shall
be disposed of as per the urgency of the matter, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably the immediate file in
one day or next day morning and the urgent file in four days:
Provided also that, in respect of the files not required to
be referred to any other Department, the concerned
Department shall take the decision and necessary action in
the matter within forty-five days and in respect of files
required to be referred to any other Department, decision and
necessary action shall be taken within three months.
(2) Any willful or intentional delay or negligence in the
discharge of official duties or in carrying out the official work
assigned or pertaining to such Government servant shall
amount to dereliction of official duties and shall make such
Government servant liable for appropriate disciplinary action
under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1979 or any other relevant disciplinary rules
applicable to such employee.
(3) The concerned competent authority on noticing or
being brought to its notice any such dereliction of duties on
the part of any Government servant, after satisfying itself
about such dereliction on the part of such Government
servant shall, take appropriate disciplinary action against
such defaulting Government servant under the relevant
disciplinary rules including taking entry relating to such
dereliction of duty in the Annual Confidential Report of such
Government servant."
dgm 7 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
6 The relevant supporting reasons of impugned order dated
13 October 2014, are as under :
"32 Pertinently, the documents in support of the plea
of misconduct liable to be relied upon by the
Government were not forming part of the annexures of
the proposal for transfer. As noted earlier all
communication referred to in the reference clause in
the transfer proposal dated 16.08.2014 which was sent
to the competent authority were sent separately,
though only on 16.08.2014. All the letters referred to
and sent only on 16.08.2014 are antecedent. The
record does not reveal that the material on the basis of
which the Respondent no.3 had alleged the misconduct
and said facts as grounds of transfer were at all
considered by competent authority.
33 All that is evident is that the Principal Secretary,
Housing, has vetted the proposal dated 16.08.2014 on
the same day instantaneously and without perusal of
supporting material, since said material had traveled to
dgm 8 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
his office independently though on the same day. In
total obedience of Principal Secretary's endorsement,
the Under Secretary adopted the grounds contained in
the proposal in office note. All Officers accepted
alleged mis-conduct in the nature of disobedience as a
basis of transfer or even without summary enquiry or
even without perusal of supporting material.
34 The record does not show that the Government
had applied its mind and recorded satisfaction to the
proposal meaning that "special reasons" existed, due to
which mid-term transfer became imperative. Note
submitted by the Under Secretary dated 19.08.2014
contains total reproduction of the letter dated
16.08.2014. Moreover, the vetting done by the
Principal Secretary Housing, endorses the reasons
suggestions respondent No.3 in his letter dated
16.08.2014 saying that "in the larger interest" the
Housing Department may propose the transfer to
review and various departments. In fact, the proposal
dgm 9 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
submitted by the Respondent No.3 was positively
vetted by the Principal Secretary on the same day and
that too within scrutiny whatsoever.
35 In the result it has to be concluded that the
grounds of misconduct when used as grounds for
transfer, those result in a summary action which is a
sort of punitive action taken in summary way. The
aspect of punitiveness may get the secondary status
would such lightening action, be justified, on the
grounds that the transfer could safeguard the larger
public interest, public safety, public order and any other
similar exigency.
36 It is not shown by the respondents as to how the
alleged misconduct of the applicant was so grave that
instead of following routine legitimate course of taking
disciplinary action and initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against applicant, as to how or for what
"special reasons" continuation of the applicant on the
dgm 10 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
same post would be so gravely prejudicial to the public
interest, that said need would constitute "special
reasons" or "extraordinary circumstances".
38 Thus, it is evident that the version contained in
the proposal for transfer i.e. letter dated 16.08.2014
alone is the factual foundation of "special reasons" or
exceptional circumstances. Acts of dis-obedience
picked up in a short duration, which do not prove and
pose any emergency to public interest, cannot and do
not ipso facto constitute factual material to answer and
justify the stipulation of "special reasons" or
"exceptional circumstances" either.
39 Therefore, this Tribunal is satisfied as regards the
fact that the Respondents have failed to make out the
case to justify the transfer within the sphere of
existence of "special reasons" or "extra-ordinary
circumstances", public interest, larger good of larger
number of people, called in name whatsoever."
dgm 11 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
7 The learned Member of the Tribunal, even referred to the
various letters exchanged by and between the parties referring to the
alleged action of Respondent No.1 ranging from 30 June 2014 to 16
August 2014. The letter dated 16 August 2014 dealt with the various
reasons noted as foundation for the transfer. Those are as under:-
"i) The applicant failed to take action as regards removal
of encroachments which was to be done furtherence to
the instructions given by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in
the meeting held on 12.02.2014, till the
commencement of Code of Conduct on 06.03.2014.
ii) Once Smt. Hinduban Oza, Member of the Association
of Cuff Parade residents, has submitted the complaint
in July 2014 about unauthorized constructions
nearby the Cuff Parade, have not been attended to by
the applicant, despite oral and written complaints.
iii) Hon'ble Shri Arvind Sawant, Member of Parliament,
Mumbai-31 constituency, has submitted the
complaint on 14.07.2014 bringing it to the notice of
the office, series of lapses on the part of applicant in
relation to her failure to remove encroachments, near
Ganeshmurti Nagar, Division 3, Colaba, Cuff Parade.
iv) The applicant was not available for contact and was
absent in the office, without notice on 08.08.2014.
v) The Applicant has shown negligence in the work of
removal of encroachment on Girgaon Chowpathy and
she did not personally attend the work and has
delegated it to subordinate staff which has resulted in
dgm 12 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
failure to secure necessary co-operation of the officers
from Bombay Municipal Corporation as well as
Police.
vi) The applicant has failed to relieve Shri Rahul Vasant
Darade inspite of his transfer on completion of term
of three years and despite that other staff in his cader
was available, and thereby she had become
insubordinate, indisciplined and instrumental for
promoting corruption.
vii) The Applicant has failed to carry out the work of
completion and furnishing schedule-2, though said
work was pending for compliance since 21.10.2011
and inspite of reminders and letter given, on
14.06.2014, 30.06.2014, 02.07.2014 and
09.07.2014.
viii) the applicant remained absent at the meeting which
was convened by Hon'ble M.L.A. Of Colaba Legislative
Assembly Constituency and proceeded on leave
without giving intimation, and has become
instrumental for the displeasure of the representatives
of the people."
8 The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners
relied upon the following cases revolving around the law of transfer
not in support of impugned order:-
(i) State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Ramchandra Kore & anr1.,
(ii) Sanjeev Bhagwantrao Kokil v. State of Maharashtra & ors.2
1 2009 (3) Bom. C. R. 673
2 2013 (7) Bom. C.R. 148
dgm 13 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
(iii) Ramakant Baburao Kendre v. State of Maharashtra & ors.
(iv) Shankarrao Narayanrao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & ors
Purushottam Govindrao Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra & ors5
(v)
(vi) Harish M. Baijal v. State of Maharashtra & ors6
(vii) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan
& anr.7
(viii) Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R.
Perachi and ors8
(vix) State of U. P. and anr v. Siya Ram and anr.9
(x) Arun Damodar Veer v. The State of Maharashtra & ors10
(xi) Union of India and ors. v. Janardhan Debanath and anr.11
9 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 relied
upon the following cases, in support of the impugned order:-
(i) Harish M. Baijal v. State of Maharashtra & ors (supra)
3 2012 (Supp) Bom. C.R. 735
4 2011 (11) Bom. C.R. 792
5 2012 (3) Bom. C.R. 442
6 Judgment dt.21.10.2011 in W.P. No. 7960 of 2011
7 (2001) 7 SCC 574
8 (2011) 2 SCC (L & S) 643
9 2004 SCC (L&S) 1009
10 1999 (2) Bom. C.R. 766
11 2004 SCC (L&S) 631
dgm 14 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
(ii) Purushottam Govindrao Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra & ors
(supra)
(iii) S. B. Bhagwat vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.12
(iv) State of Rajasthan v. Vinodkumar13
(v) State of J & K v. Vinay Nanda14
(vi) Union of India and anr v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal15
(vii) Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and ors.16
(viii) Punjab State Electricity Board and ors. v. JIT Singh17
(ix) The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v.
The Union of India and anr.18
10 Both the learned counsel have cited the Judgments so
noted above dealing with the power, authority and jurisdiction of the
Court to interfere with the order of transfer without assigning any
reason. The principle so laid down are based upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. The State Act and its provisions have been
dealt with and interpreted in these judgments. In some matters, based
12 2012 (3) Mh. L. J. 197
13 2012 (6) SCC 770
14 (2001) 2 SCC 504
15 2014 (1) SCJ 115
16 (2009) 2 SCC 592
17 (2009) 13 SCC 118
18 AIR 1976 SC 1785
dgm 15 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
upon the facts, this Court interfered with the order of transfer. In
some cases, this Court refused to interfere with the order of transfer.
We are not dealing with the facts and circumstances of each case as
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the settled
principle is that the Court needs to consider the background, events
and the relevant documents and related facts of the case in hand
before applying the State law and the State policy of transfer of
employees.
11 The learned Tribunal, therefore, in view of above
background required to consider the basic reasons and/or existence of
"special reasons" or "exceptional circumstances" as referred to in
second proviso of Sub Sections (4) and (5) of Section 4 of the Act.
The learned Tribunal member has also recorded, "that there exists a
case of gross misconduct and therefore the State has option to initiate
the disciplinary proceedings, however, they have taken recourse to this
action of transfer instead of suspension.". There are specific
provisions under the Act with regard to the disciplinary action which
needs to be taken, if the case of insubordination or misconduct is
made out. There was no such Departmental action initiated by the
dgm 16 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
State. Therefore, without assigning any reason, they have treated the
same grounds as grounds for transfer, without referring to the
explanation so given and without initiating any disciplinary action
and/or proceedings against the Petitioner.
12 The learned Tribunal also recorded reasons for interfering
with the order treated it to be transfer order, as quoted in paragraph
Nos. 32 to 39. This finding and the basis of setting aside order passed
by the Applicant, we have to test under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In our view, to interfere with such order/detailed reasoned
order passed by the Tribunal, unless there is a perversity and/or
illegality and the order is based upon the extra material than the law.
The reason so recorded above and the findings so given, in our view,
just cannot be stated to be contrary to the record, bad in law and/or
perverse to interfere with the same.
13 The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
the order of transfer is a punitive order and/or is in lieu of
punishment. He submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex
dgm 17 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India and others 19 a
punitive order or an order in lieu of punishment would be bad in law.
He also placed reliance on the decision of Division bench of this Court
in the case of Harish Maganlal Baijal Vs The State of Maharashtra
in Writ Petition No. 7960 of 2011 decided on 21 October 2011. In this
decision the Division Bench has followed the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra).
According to the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner-
State, the order was not passed in lieu of punishment but the
behaviour of the Respondents was such that it was found necessary to
transfer her from the post, on administrative grounds. He submitted
that neither the transfer order casts any stigma nor the service
conditions or career prospects of the Respondents are affected in any
manner.
15 The Act not only regulates the transfers by providing a
security of tenure for minimum period but also mandates the
government to take action against the erring officers who are
negligent in performance of their duty.
19 (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592
dgm 18 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
16 Section 10 of the Act mandates that a government servant
shall be bound to discharge his duties as diligently and expeditiously.
Sub-section 2 of Section 10 declares a willful or intentional delay or
negligence as a conduct liable for disciplinary action under the All
India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979, or such other
disciplinary rules. Section 10(3) of the Act not only confers power on
the competent authority but also casts a duty on it to take appropriate
disciplinary action when the case of willful or intentional delay or
negligence by any government servant is made out.
17 If the gist of allegations against the Respondents are
perused they fall under sub-section 10(2) of the Act. Thus, once case
of alleged negligence on part of the Respondents was brought to the
notice of the authority as per Sub-section 3, after satisfying itself, the
authority had to take appropriate disciplinary action. Negligence or
intentional delay, which is squarely the case put against the
Respondent, is thus a misconduct to be dealt with departmentally
under Section 10(3) of the Act. Upon repeated query, the learned
Senior advocate for the Petitioner-State has stated that, State has not
dgm 19 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
decided to hold an departmental enquiry against the Respondent.
According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the State can
choose not to hold departmental enquiry when such allegation is
made and simplicitor transfer an employee on that basis. If the case
under Section 10(2) is made out, for the purpose of the Act, it would
be a misconduct, liable for disciplinary action. If satisfied that such
ground exists, the satisfaction of the authority would be that the
government servant has committed misconduct. It is always open to
the government to transfer an employee pending a disciplinary action.
But without taking any disciplinary enquiry if a transfer is effected
then it will be a transfer whose foundation will be based on
misconduct. The purport of Chapter III of the Act is not only to
govern master and servant relationship but to improve good
governance by placing the competent authority under obligation to
take action against negligent government officers. If the authority is
satisfied that such negligence exists, then a punitive action is
warranted to inculcate a sense of discipline. If an enquiry is held the
government servant will also get an opportunity to defend himself and
clear the imputations of negligence.
dgm 20 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
18 After going through the pleadings and documents and the
reasons so given by the learned Tribunal, we have also to consider
whether the State's decision of transfer was based upon the
supporting material on record. The State at the time of passing of
transfer order had not assigned any reasons even briefly. The
documents so referred and reflected in the reasons of the impugned
order shows that it was the case of alleged misconduct and/or
insubordination by the employee. The action ought to have been
taken under the Act. Though reference is made in the transfer order
stating it to be "repatriation" but, without referring to any reasons for
the same, they passed the unreasoned mid-term transfer order.
19 In Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of
Maharashtra,20 the Supreme Court observed as under :
"19 In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd v. Masood Ahmed
Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Court dealt with the
question of demarcation between the administrative
orders and quasi-judicial orders and the requirement of
adherence to natural justice. The Court held as under :
20 (2012) 13 SCC 14
dgm 21 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
(SCC pp. 510-12, para 47)
"47 Summarising the above discussion, this
Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been
to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c ) ............
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds
and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-making
process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
dgm 22 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior courts.
(h) to (o) ............."
20 The Apex Court dealing with the power including
administrative of any Authority, including of quasi-judicial authority,
referred that the basic principle of natural justice required to be
followed by all the concerned. It is not the case that the State
initiated action immediately after recording the misconduct and/or
dereliction of duties. The initiation for such action so started in the
month of June ultimately culminated into the confused order dated 30
August 2014, even after the written submissions and the explanations
by the employee. Therefore, in this background, the order in
question, in our view, ought to have been with reasons which is
apparently missing in the present case.
21 It is essential for the delinquent/employee to know the
special reason or circumstance for such order so also for the
Court/Tribunal. The State's submission is that, there is no specific
dgm 23 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
provision to provide reasons and/or even to issue any show cause
notice. There is no procedure for making any representation. The
immediate effect was given to the order of transfer. The
Tribunal/Court, as directed, for the first time the Appellant/State
placed on record the materials to justify their unreasoned "mid-term
transfer" and/or "repatriation" order. The Court/Tribunal, has no
choice but to go into those factual background and circumstances and
came to the conclusion as reflected in the impugned order, as the
Executive/State did not provide reasons in support of the same. This
procedure has caused further delay in deciding the matter, to note the
background circumstances by going through the files in the Court. In
the meantime the transfer order attracted interim order, pending the
final decision. This frustrate the whole object of such transfer also.
This, in no way, to be read and refer, to mean that in an extraordinary
circumstances and for a special reason, reflected on record, the State
cannot pass transfer order. The special privilege and/or claim can be
made and/or right may be reserved to show the reason exclusively to
the Court and/or the Tribunal. This is not even a "special" and/or
"extraordinary circumstances" case in view of the submission so made
and the explanation given without initiating any disciplinary action as
dgm 24 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
contemplated under the Act.
22 The decision so taken, in the background, in breach of
principle of statutory provisions and the principle of natural justice is
bad in law, as this amounts to punishment/punitive action based upon
unproved alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty. The transfer
order refers to the repatriation action also, but the State has invoked
the State Act. This also reflects the non-application of mind,
confusion and any concrete foundation or motive. The process
followed to take such decision was wrong and arbitrary.
23 The transfer is a part of service contract and/or the service
jurisprudence. "Transfer is an incidence of service" - "Reason to be
recorded" - cannot read to mean, no reason should not be
communicated at any circumstances, specially when it is obligatory on
the part of the State to act fairly, transparently and reasonably. The
decision needs to be actuated by consideration based on law and the
record and certainly not an extraneous consideration. Unreasoned
order is always vulnerable to challenge and stated to be mala fide.
The State/Authority needs to act bonafide. Therefore, cannot be
dgm 25 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
restricted to meant for and/or with the private record/department. It
must be reflected before taking any action/order. Perversity or
irrationality, bonafide, legality of reasons difficult to test, if not
disclosed at the time of order/action itself. It is normally the
unreasoned mid-term order or such orders are vulnerable to
challenge. An executive order on undisclosed or unreasoned
foundation of alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty is also
vulnerable to challenge on the ground of malice in law. Such
undisclosed burdened mid-term order of transfer affects the status of
the employee, it violates the service conditions thus illegal, though it
is administrative order. It has civil consequences. The principle of
natural justice is applicable. The State Act and not any guidelines
govern such State Government transfer order, such transfer order is
arbitrary, irrational and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24 It is relevant to note, in this background, the view
expressed by the Supreme Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of
India21 dealing with the service matters is in the following words:-
"42. The Constitution declares that India is a
sovereign democratic Republic. The requirement of
21 Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2014 dated 22 September 2014
dgm 26 wp-9781-14-judgment.sxw
such democratic republic is that every action of the
State is to be informed with reason. State is not a
hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of
bureaucracy."
"43. The right to judicial remedies for the redressal
of either personal or public grievances is a
constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and
non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State
cannot become members of a different and inferior
class to whom such right is not available."
25 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Interim order stands
vacated.
26 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners-State
submitted to stay the effect and operation of the Judgment passed
today in the Court. Considering the reasons so recorded, we see no
case is made out to stay the Judgment. The oral request is therefore,
rejected.
(N. M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
