Delhi High Court
Ashu Singhal vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 November, 2017
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 20, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10302/2017
ASHU SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.R.Khatana, Mr.Ashish Chauhan
and Mr.Kushagra Bansal, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and
Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for R-1
Mr.B.K.Sood, Advocate for R-2 and R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CM No.42035/2017
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10302/2017
Petitioner is a Group 'B' employee of respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), who vide impugned order of 8th November, 2017
(Annexure A-7) has been transferred from Sahibabad to Mumbai. The
grievance of petitioner is that the impugned transfer is contrary to the
Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) which provides for transfer within the
zone. Petitioner asserts that petitioner has been transferred outside his
zone.
Mr.B.K.Sood, who appears on behalf of respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5 of
the Transfer Policy (Annexure A-6) to point out that the transfer can be
outside the zone also for administrative reasons and submits on
instructions that the impugned transfer is, in fact, on the ground of
administrative exigencies. To assert so, Mr.B.K.Sood, learned counsel
for respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has produced some
office notings of the respondent while claiming privilege and submits that
the impugned transfer of petitioner is well justified.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the
transfer of petitioner is vitiated by malafides and draws attention of this
Court to petitioner's ACR (Annexure A-2) to point out that his
knowledge, ability and willingness to accept responsibility has been
found to be 'Good'. It is pointed out that the fact of ailment of
petitioner's wife and mother has been brought to the notice of
respondents vide e-mail of 8th November, 2017 followed by written
representation of 10th November, 2017 but to no avail. To assert
malafides, reliance is placed upon a decision of Supreme Court in Somesh
Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 592.
Upon hearing and on perusal of Transfer Policy in question,
material on record and the decision cited, I find that petitioner's transfer
is not contrary to the Transfer Policy as Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy
(Annexure A-6) provides for transfer outside zone for administrative
exigencies. In the matter of transfer of employees, Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC
178 has re-emphasised that the Courts are always reluctant in interfering
with transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation
of statutory provisions or suffers from malafides.
Although malafides had been alleged, but vaguely and so, reliance
placed upon decision in Somesh Tiwari (supra) is misplaced. The
petitioner's plea of his mother and wife's ailment is of no avail as
medical facilities are available in Mumbai. While taking note of the
administrative reasons put forth by the respondent-Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), I refrain to interfere with the impugned transfer as I find
that it is not vitiated by any malafide. Nor it is contrary to the Transfer
Policy. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Petitioner is granted a week's time to join at the place where he has
been transferred and if he does not do so, then respondent-Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) is at liberty to proceed against petitioner in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
CM No.42036/2017
Disposed of as infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2017/mamta
