S.K. Srivastava vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 6300 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 22nd December, 2011
+                           W.P.(C) 8324/2011

%        S.K. SRIVASTAVA                                     ..... Petitioner
                       Through:         Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. with
                                        Mr. S.K. Gupta, Adv.

                                  Versus

         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                          Through:      Mr. R. Venkataraman, Sr. Adv. with
                                        Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW


                               JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 23.11.2011 of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi dismissing O.A.

No.2600/2011 preferred by the petitioner. The said O.A. was preferred

challenging the order dated 14.07.2011 vide which the petitioner, an Indian

Revenue Service (IRS) Officer of 1987 batch, was posted on promotion

and transfer as Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeal), Ranchi. The

Tribunal vide ex parte order dated 20.07.2011, while issuing notice of the

O.A., had directed that the transfer order be not given effect to. While

finally dismissing the O.A. vide impugned order dated 23.11.2011, the said

interim order was vacated.

2. This writ petition came up first before this Court on 25.11.2011

when the counsel for the respondents appeared on caveat / advance notice.

On the representation of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents

had shown undue haste in, vide order dated 25.11.2011 itself relieving the

petitioner from his duty at Delhi with immediate effect, we had directed

that the relieving order be not given effect to. The said interim order has

continued till now. The counsel for the respondents waived formal notice

and with consent, the counsels have been heard finally at the admission

stage itself.

3. Need was not felt to issue notice of the petition to the private

respondents No.7&8.

4. The case of the petitioner is, that his performance has generally been

rated as outstanding and very good; that because of his opposition to

corruption and moral depravity in the Income Tax Department and because

of his having detected and reported theft of public money and public

revenue in excess of `10,000/- crores by corrupt and morally deprived IRS

Officers, he has been targeted and impleaded in false and mischievous

cases; that in the year 1999, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at

Delhi and subsequently promoted as Joint CIT and Additional CIT and

retained at Delhi; that in the year 2007, he was placed under suspension

and owing whereto the recommendations of the DPC held on 30.03.2007

qua him were placed in the sealed cover; that the order of suspension

challenged by filing O.A. No.3661/2009 was set aside vide order dated

31.05.2010 therein for the reason of having been continued without

substantial progress in the inquiry; that the sealed cover aforesaid was

opened and the petitioner was ordered by the Appointment Committee of

the Cabinet to be promoted to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax

with effect from 28.08.2007 i.e. the date of promotion of his junior with

consequential benefits; however he was not so promoted and posted; that

the Tribunal vide order dated 19.11.2010 in O.A. No.271/2010 directed the

respondents to issue his posting and promotion orders on the basis of

option already given by him; that the said order was also not complied with

and on notice being issued in contempt proceedings initiated by him, he

was on 11.05.2011 promoted as Commissioner of Income Tax and posted

in Delhi; that owing to the same, the contempt proceedings were

discharged; however on 14.07.2011 he was arbitrarily transferred to

Ranchi.

5. It was thus the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal, (i)

that the petitioner having been posted on 11.05.2011 as CIT (OSD) at

Delhi could not on 14.07.2011 have been posted / transferred as CIT

(Appeal) at Ranchi; (ii) that the invocation of paras 3.3 and 7.1 of the

Transfer Guidelines dated 16.02.2010 was misconceived; (iii) that the

petitioner having been promoted and posted on 11th May, 2011, could not

have been transferred citing the ground of promotion and posting after

promotion; (iv) that there could be no interim posting; (v) that no cocktail

of paras 3.3. and 7.1 of the Transfer Guidelines could have been made; (vi)

that the transfer was without taking into account the preference given by

him; (vii) that the transfer was in violation of the order dated 19.11.2010 in

O.A. No.271/2010; (viii) that the transfer order dated 14.07.2011 wrongly

presumed that the petitioner had spent more than 10 years in Delhi; (ix)

that the period during which he remained suspended was to be excluded in

calculating his posting time at Delhi and upon such calculation, he had not

worked in Delhi for more than eight years and was entitled to be in Delhi

upto the end of 2015; (x) that the Administrative Controlling Authority at

Ranchi was junior to him by one year; (xi) that the transfer order is

punitive in nature owing to the petitioner having filed the cases against

other officers of the department; (xii) that there was no administrative

exigency for posting him to Ranchi; (xiii) that the principle of first in first

out should have been applied; (xiv) that the posting authority i.e. Finance

Minister who is to be guided by the Placement Committee had been

misguided.

6. The respondents, before the Tribunal itself, gave an option to the

petitioner that if he felt that he should have been transferred to a better and

bigger place than Ranchi or for the reason of the Administrative Authority,

Ranchi being junior to him should give a request for change and which

would be considered. The said offer was however not accepted by the

petitioner. The respondents also denied that there was any cocktail in the

transfer order of para 3.3 and para 7.1 of the Transfer Guidelines. It was

further contended that the order on 11.05.2011 promoting the petitioner as

CIT (OSD) at Delhi was on the eve of contempt proceedings initiated by

the respondents and was until further orders only, till the meeting of the

Placement Committee; that the Placement Committee after considering all

the facts had vide order dated 14.07.2011 posted the petitioner at Ranchi;

that the petitioner had been working in Delhi for a very long time and

transfer was due long back and he had now been transferred due to

promotion. It was denied that the transfer was punitive. It was also

pleaded that in fact it was the petitioner who had been making reckless

allegations against various officers of the department and had to apologize

before the High Court and had also assured that he would not in further

level any wild allegations against officials of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal in the impugned order, at the outset observed that the

interference in transfer and posting of government employees is limited

and confined only where (i) the authorities who issued the transfer orders,

were not competent to pass the orders; or, (ii) the service rules, transfer

policy / guidelines prohibit such transfer; or, (iii) the order is mala fide; or

(iv) the order suffers from arbitrary and discriminative action of the

Executive. It was observed that the petitioner had All India Transfer

liability and it was not in dispute that the transfer and posting orders of the

petitioner to Ranchi had been passed by the competent authority i.e. the

Finance Minister. As far as the challenge to the transfer as contrary to the

Transfer Guidelines was concerned, the Tribunal found that as per the said

Guidelines, on promotion Group „A‟ Officers were normally to be

transferred out of the region; that the petitioner had been working in Delhi

with effect from 07.06.1999; that even during his suspension, his

headquarter was at Delhi and thus the period of suspension was not to be

excluded; the stay of the petitioner at Delhi was computed as of eight years

and four months; that the petitioner, on promotion was thus due to be

transferred out of the region. The argument of reverse discrimination was

held to be not admissible. It was similarly held that there was no violation

of the order dated 19.11.2010 in O.A. No.271/2010. The allegations of

mala fide and arbitrariness were also found to be not substantiated.

8. We may at this stage set out some of the paras of the the Minutes of

the Meeting held on 01.07.2011 of the Placement Committee qua the

transfer of the petitioner to Ranchi and posting in grade of Commissioner

of Income Tax, in so far as relevant for the agreements raised before us:

"1. The promotion of Shri S.K. Srivastava (IRS-87052) to the grade of Commissioner of Income-tax for the year 2006-07 has been carried out in compliance of the order of Hon‟ble CAT in O.A. NO.271/2010. Approval of Hon‟ble Finance Minister was obtained on 11.05.2011, to promote the officer. This approval was taken, based on legal advice, before the CAT hearing fixed for 12th May, 2011, after dismissal of the Department‟s WP 7880/2010 in the Delhi High Court, and in the light of the contempt proceedings before CAT Delhi, when CAT had not accepted the Departments‟ stand. On 11.05.2011, Chairman CBDT had noted on the file that Hon‟ble Finance Minister had also directed that the "Officer

should be promoted and posted in the same place where he is currently posted, till the final decision is taken by the Placement Committee / FM."

2. Accordingly, a meeting of the Placement Committee was held today on 01.07.2011 to decide the posting of Shri S.K. Srivastava (IRS-87052), in order to implement the directions of Hon‟ble Finance Minister as recorded by Chairman, CBDT on 11.05.2011.

3. Para 3.3 of Transfer / Placement Guidelines for officers of the Indian Revenue Service, CBDT 2010 reads as "On promotion, Group-A officers will normally be transferred out of the Region, except where they have come to that Region less than two years earlier. However, they may be retained for the balance period of tenure at the place of their posting, subject to the availability of the vacancies".

4.2.2. ................... This has since been revised and replaced by Transfer / Placement Guidelines for Officers of Indian Revenue Service - 2010. Under the present facts and circumstances the officer is being considered for promotion in the Grade of Commissioner of Income Tax. According to the new / prevalent Transfer /

Placement Guidelines for Officer of Indian Revenue Service - 2010 the postings of officers on promotion is guided by para 3.3 of the said guidelines. Para 4 of the new Transfer / Placement Guidelines which corresponds to para 5 of earlier policy is not relevant in case of the officer‟s transfer on promotion.

5. Placement Committee has, additionally, considered the fact that the officer has been filing a large number of cases in the Delhi High Court, CAT and District Courts, not limited only to his own service / personal matters. The officer has filed around 35 cases in various Courts in Delhi since 2006, including cases such as seeking permission of the Delhi High Court to "to associate in the prosecution of income tax appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, New Delhi in the matter of evasion of tax by"..... a company with which he had no connection as either assessing, supervisory or appellate officer. As a result various Courts have passed adverse comments and strictures against him and imposed costs on the officer for abuse of the process of law as well as use of un- parliamentary language and unwarranted references to women officers, even in his petitions. These however

have not deterred him from continuing to use un- parliamentary language particularly against lady officers and filing / proposing litigation for extraneous reasons against other officers, individuals and institutions, in Delhi.

5.1 As a matter of fact, as recently as 15.06.2011, the Delhi High Court, in a writ petition filed by the officer, has found the officer "guilty of making a false façade of inquiries against ....." Officers of the Department and he has been warned by the High Court as under:

"Though the petitioner is found guilty of making a false façade of inquiries pending against Sh. S.S. Rana and Ms. Sudha Sharma and of having gone to the extent of pleading that appointment of Sh. S.S. Rana and Ms. Sudha Sharma as members of the CBDT would place them above the Officers inquiring against them and which pleas have turned out to be blatantly false but since the writ petition is dismissed in limine, I refrain myself from imposing any costs on the petitioner. The petitioner is however warned to be careful in future of the pleas made and the arguments taken before the Court."

In the totality of the above circumstances, and in view of the directions that his posting after the issue of his promotion order as CIT needs to be considered by the Placement Committee and submitted for approval of Hon‟ble Finance Minister, the Placement Committee, considering the totality of the above facts and circumstances, recommends that apart from being posted in terms of Clause 3.3 of the Placement Guidelines that would apply in his case, the continuation of his placement in Delhi would not be in administrative interest.

6. In view of the above discussion and after considering the letter of Shri S.K. Srivastava, the various Courts orders cited by him, and the facts and circumstances recorded in para 5 above, it is proposed to post him, as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi under CCA-Patna, subject to the approval of Hon‟ble Finance Minister. In selecting the Station of posting, the Placement Committee has also considered the availability of medical facilities at this Station to take care of his family requirements and also the fact that Bihar is his home state."

9. The aforesaid Placement Committee, in accordance with the

Transfer / Placement Guidelines dated 16.02.2010, comprises of Chairman

of the CBDT, Member (Personnel & Vigilance) and the senior most

member of CBDT. The decision aforesaid is unanimous. Clauses 3.3 and

7.1 of the Transfer / Placement Guidelines dated 16.02.2010 are as under:

"3.3 On promotion, Group-„A‟ officers will normally be transferred out of the Region, except where they have come to that Region less than two years earlier. However, they may be retained for the balance period of tenure at the place of their posting, subject to the availability of vacancies.

7.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Guidelines the Placement Committee may, if it in furtherance of organizational objectives, transfer, retain or post any officer to any station / Region or a specific post." Clauses 4.3(i) inter alia provides that Group „A‟ officers shall be liable to transfer if they have on 31st December of the preceding year completed eight years of continuous stay in field posting in New Delhi.

10. The senior counsel for the petitioner before us has contended:

(i) That notwithstanding Clause 3.3 supra, of the sixty odd

transfers / placements effected vide transfer order dated

14.07.2011, ten have been retained in Delhi inspite of

promotion;

(ii) That in the promotion-cum-placement order communicated to

the petitioner on 11.05.2011, the words "until further orders"

did not find mention;

(iii) That the discretion of the Placement Committee in

transferring the petitioner outside Delhi on promotion stood

exhausted on 11.05.2011 on the petitioner being retained at

Delhi and the said discretion could not be exercised again;

(iv) That Clause 3.3 and Clause 7.1 of the Transfer / Placement

Guidelines are mutually exclusive and when clause 3.3 is

invoked, the clause7.1 shall have no role;

(v) That the Petitioner has filed Criminal Writ Petition

No.876/2011 for investigation by CBI into conduct of Sh. S.S.

Rana and his accomplices including Sh. Prakash Chandra,

Chairman, CBDT at the time of Minutes dated 01.07.2011

(supra) and owing thereto, the order of transfer to Ranchi is

mala fide;

(vi) That para 3.3 supra uses the word "normally" which means

that there is no bar under the Transfer / Placement Guidelines

also for the petitioner continuing in Delhi inspite of

promotion;

(vii) That the petitioner has completed only five years and one

month in Delhi and the Tribunal has wrongly computed the

petitioner to have completed more than eight years in Delhi.

A copy of communication dated 09.12.2011 of CBDT

enclosing the profile of the petitioner as available in cadre

management system is relied on in this regard. It is contented

that it was for this reason only that on 11.05.2011 a decision

to retain the petitioner in Delhi was taken;

(viii) A case of malice in law is made out from the respondents

having proceeded on the premise of the petitioner having

completed more than eight years in Delhi;

(ix) Attention is invited to the list of cases filed by the petitioner.

It is contended that the petitioner was driven to wall in filing

the said cases and has succeeded in all the cases which he was

compelled to file and merely because the petitioner was

forced to take remedies against his grievance cannot be held

against the petitioner.

11. The senior counsel for the respondents has urged:

(i) That the Transfer / Placement Guidelines cannot be read as a

charter of rights;

(ii) That the Placement Committee under the said Guidelines is

the primary body to decide the transfer / placement;

(iii) That the word "normally" in para 3.3 means "invariably";

(iv) That the Finance Minister has approved the transfer order

dated 14.07.2011 impugned in these proceedings;

(v) That the petitioner has mischievously been filing criminal

complaints against the lady officers of the department in the

Courts at Noida to get warrants of their arrest issued and to

deprive them of the provision of anticipatory bail;

(vi) That the Placement Committee was fully justified in taking

stock of all the aforesaid facts inasmuch as the continuance of

the petitioner is detrimental to the harmony and peaceful

functioning of the department;

(vii) That the petitioner has even filed an application in the "2G

Telecommunication Proceedings" to be examined as a

witness. Reliance is placed on the order dated 09.02.2010

dismissing W.P.(C) No.13606/2009 preferred by the

petitioner seeking participation in the prosecution of the

appeal preferred by the department in the matter of evasion of

tax by M/s NDTV Ltd. and seeking holding of enquiry and

which WP(C) was dismissed with costs of `20,000/-

observing that the petitioner had made reckless and

scandalous allegations against various officials of the

department and the writ petition had been filed in abuse of the

process of the Court and intended to embarrass the colleagues

in the department;

(viii) Reference is made to order dated 15.06.2011 dismissing

W.P.(C) No.4326/2011 preferred by the petitioner seeking

quashing of the recommendations of the Empowered

Committee of Secretaries for appointment to the post of

Members CBDT of Sh. S.S. Rana and Ms. Sudha Sharma;

(ix) That inspite of undertaking given to this Court, the petitioner

is not cooperating in the enquiry against him of sexual

harassment.

(x) Reliance is placed on T.D. Subramaniam @ Satyapalan Vs.

UOI (1981) 4 SCC 150, M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS Vs.

State of Karnataka (1993) 1 SCC 54, National Hydroelectric

Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC

574, State of U.P. Vs. Siya Ram (2004) 7 SCC 405 & Anil

Dhall Vs. UOI 81 (1999) DLT 501, judgment dated

23.07.2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.10200/2009 titled Ram Kumar Vs. UOI, judgment dated

03.07.2009 of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.539/2009 titled UOI Vs. Azam Siddiqui, all on the scope

of interference by the Court in orders of transfer.

12. The senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has handed over a

summary of synopsis together with copies of judgments viz. (i) Somesh

Tiwari Vs. UOI 2009 (2) SCC 592 (ii) Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs.

State of Maharashtra 1997-(006)-SCC-0169-SC (iii) judgment dated

19.12.2006 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16802/2006 titled R.N. Tiwari Vs.

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (iv) judgment dated 04.08.2004 of the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12923/2004 titled Sqn. Ldr.

K.V. Rao Vs. UOI (v) judgment dated 23.07.2009 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.10200/2009 titled Ram Kumar R. Vs. UOI.

13. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has vested the decision of

the disputes as the present in the Central Administrative Tribunal and has

not deemed it appropriate to provide any appeal there against. This Court

has been approached in exercise of its powers of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Scope of interference in exercise

of such powers is widely different from that as in appeal. Wade‟s

Administrative law (8th Edition) sums up the said difference as, when

hearing an appeal the court is concerned with merits of a decision: is it

correct? In Judicial Review, the court is concerned with the legality: is it

within the limits of the powers granted? The said parameters cannot be

lost sight of while dealing with the matter.

14. Of the four grounds, as noticed supra by the Tribunal, on which the

challenge to the order of transfer can be entertained, as rightly held by the

Tribunal, there is no challenge as to the order having been effected by the

competent authority for the transfer being prohibited under the Transfer

Policy / Guidelines in force . It is not the case of the Petitioner before us

also. All the grounds urged by the petitioner fall in the two remaining

categories, of the order being mala fide or of the transfer suffering from

arbitrariness and malice of discrimination.

15. As far as the plea of mala fides is concerned, the Tribunal has not

found the same to have been established. We are unable to find any

perversity or illegality in the said finding of the Tribunal. The allegations

of malice and mala fides are only against Prakash Chandra, Chairman,

CBDT who is but one of the members of the Placement Committee. The

other two members of the Placement Committee as aforesaid are also high

ranking officers and against whom there is no allegation or whisper of

being inimical to the petitioner save for general blaming the entire

department, if not the world. The decision of the Placement Committee as

aforesaid is unanimous. When the allegations are against one of the three

Member Placement Committee and there is no averment that the member

against whom mala fides are alleged was is in a position to influence the

decision of the other two members or so influenced the decision of others,

the recommendation of the three Member Committee cannot be said to be

suffering from the malady of malice or mala fides. Moreover, the

Placement Committee is but to make the recommendation. The competent

authority to affect the transfer is the Finance Minister and there are no

allegations of mala fides against him. We are therefore unable to find any

ground for interference with the decision of the Tribunal, of the petitioner

having failed to establish a case of mala fides. Merely because the

Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition against one of the members of the

Placement Committee cannot allow the Petitioner to label the decision so

taken as mala fide for the reason of pendency of the said Writ Petition. If

such a course were to be permitted, it would open the gates for

unscrupulous persons to initiate proceedings against persons likely to take

decisions qua them, to subsequently in the event of the decision being

against their like, label the same as mala fide. We may also observe that

the Placement Committee, in taking the decision to transfer the Petitioner

from Delhi to Ranchi was not guided by the time already spent by Petitioner at

Delhi: It was the plea of Petitioner before the Tribunal that he had not

completed 8 years mentioned in Clause 4.3(i) supra of the Transfer/Placement

Guidelines. It was in response of the said plea that the Tribunal returned

the finding of the Petitioner having completed more than eight years. We

are unable to find any error therein also. The reliance by the Petitioner on

his profile as available in cadre management system is misconceived; the

same itself mentions that the duration mentioned therein may differ from

calculation as per policy.

16. We now take up the remaining ground of arbitrariness and

discrimination.

17. The star argument of the petitioner is of the petitioner being not

liable to be transferred for the reason of having already been promoted and

placed at Delhi. However, a perusal of the order dated 11.05.2011 and

copy whereof was served not only on the petitioner and other officials but

also placed on the website of the department shows the same to have been

issued in compliance of the order dated 12.05.2010 in O.A. No.271/2010

and the same to be "until further orders". In sharp contrast, such words are

not found, neither in the transfer order dated 14.07.2011 effecting transfer

of scores of officers nor in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 01.07.2011.

It is the petitioner‟s own case that the said order dated 11.05.2011 was

passed hurriedly in the night since the senior official of the department had

been summoned to appear before the tribunal on 12.05.2010 in the

contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner. As per the Transfer/

Placement Guidelines, the person / body vested with power is of Tribunal

/Placement is the Placement Committee. The order dated 11.05.2011 is

not of the Placement Committee but of the Under Secretary to the

Government of India. The same was issued in a hurry to comply with the

order of the Tribunal and to save the rigour of contempt and as an interim

arrangement, till the body entrusted with the power to transfer / place could

meet and take decision. We are unable to hold that the Placement

committee entrusted under the Guidelines to take the decision was

deprived of its said power merely for the reason that to save punishment

for contempt, an interim decision has earlier been taken.

18. Rather, we are of the view that the averments of the petitioner of

mala fides are belied from the order dated 11.05.2011. Had the department

or any of its senior officers entertained any mala fides against the

petitioner, nothing prevented them from in order dated 11.05.2011 itself,

while promoting the Petitioner, post the petitioner outside Delhi. On the

contrary they choose not to disturb the status as then prevailing and which

would have caused more inconvenience to the petitioner, till a decision is

taken by the Placement Committee.

19. With the aforesaid finding, the entire edifice of the case of the

petitioner falls. Clause 4.3 (i) of Transfer Guidelines providing liability

from transfer on completion of eight years at Delhi does not create any

right to remain in Delhi for eight years and in any case is not attracted to

cases of promotion. Clause 3.3 supra attaches transfer out of region to

promotion. It is not in dispute that Petitioner has been promoted. The

counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show as to why the normal

rule of transfer following promotion should not be followed in case of

Petitioner. There is nothing to show that, on 11.05.2011 any decision was

taken to digress from clause 3.3. Supra

20. The other arguments of some other persons having not been

transferred also are without any basis; their service records are not before

us and we are unable to give any credence to the same. Even otherwise

who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide

and order of transfer cannot be interfered with on the ground that some

others have not been transferred.

21. From the perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Placement

Committee we find that the recommendation for transfer of Petitioner to

Ranchi is as per clause 3.3. However in addition thereto, the Placement

Committee has also noticed that, the Petitioner had been filling large

number of cases not limited to his own service/personal matters and in

some of which Courts had passed strictures/comments and imposed costs

against him; that the Petitioner was continuing to use un-parliamentary

language against the lady officers. The Placement Committee for these

reasons also recommended that continuous of Petitioner at Delhi was not in

administrative interest. These reasons, as aforesaid are over and above the

liability of Petitioner under the guidelines for transfer outside Delhi on

promotion. Had these been the real reasons for transfer of Petitioner

outside Delhi and Clause 3.3 was only a camouflage, the Placement

Committee would not have in the Minutes of Meeting referred thereto.

22. As far as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are concerned,

in Somesh Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court returned a finding of fact that

the order of transfer was by way of punishment. It has not been found so

in the present case. Moreover as aforesaid, besides Sh. Prakash Chandra,

Chairman, CBDT against whom allegations of mala fides are leveled, two

other members of the Placement Committee and the Finance Minister

against all of whom no allegations have been leveled are also of the view

not only there is no need to make any exception from the normal rule of

transfer on promotion but also it being the administrative exigency to

transfer the petitioner out of Delhi. . Similarly in Arvind Dattatraya

Dhande (supra) there was a finding of mala fide and in Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Rao

(supra) there was a finding of the transfer being in contravention of

statutory rule. The said judgments are thus de hors the facts of the present

case and have no application. We fail to decipher as to why reliance is

placed on R.N. Tiwari and Ram Kumar supra in as much as they are not

found to support the case of the Petitioner.

23. We thus do not find any merit in the challenge by the petitioner to

the transfer order or to the order of the Tribunal. . We accordingly dismiss

the petition. The interim order stands vacated. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 22nd , 2011 „gsr‟