GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus ATMARAM SUNGOMAL POSHANI

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 31-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GUJARAT ELEcrRICiTY BOARD & ANR. 
A 
v. 
A TMARAM SUNGOMAL POSHANI 
MARCH 31, 1989 
IE.S. VENKATAllAMIAH ANb K.N. SINGH, JJ.l 
B 
CIVIL SEifVICES: Transfer-An incident of service-No 
employee /las legal right to be posted at ·any particular place-
Transfer-Necessary in public interest and efficiency of administration-
No employee has right to be absent from duty without sanction of leave. 
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Supreme Court-Transfer of C 
case from one Bench to another-Entitlement torr-Only when Bench is 
biased or there are other reasoiidb/e grounds-Not when a Judge expre-
sses opinion oit merits of case on conclusion of hearing. 
'Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section JJ4(e)-Registered cover sent D 
to addressee presumption of S~Yl•ice-When arises. 
The respondent jolilt'il service as technicai assistant with the 
~ Guj11rat State Elettrkity Board attd was later promoted to the post of 
Deputy Engineer, While lie IVils posted at Surat he was transferred to 
Ukai Sllb,divlsion under tlle order of the Superintending Engineer s 
dated 29th March, 1974 alid lie was relieved from his duties at Surat on 
30th Match, 1974. he made h!preselltation to the Addi. Chief Engineer 
for cancelling his transfer order Which was rejected and he was directed 
to join at Ukai but be did ilot do so and continued to be absent without 
~ 
sanction of any leave and instead be tiled a civil suit challenging validity 
4 
of the order ortransfer. 
F 
the Supetlllteililing Engineer by his letter dated 18th April, 1974 
directed Ille respondent to show cause as to why action should not be 
take11 agaillsl liim for disobeyihg tlie order of transfer and also for 
unauthorised absence from duty iii breach of service Regulation No. 
113. The respondent failed to join bis duly even after a warning. There-
G 
after the Superinteading Engineer sent a letter dated 24th April, 1974 
liy registered covet which contained a warning but the same was re-
turned back lly the postal authorities with an endorsement that the 
addtesse-e refused to accept tlle same. 
Meanwhlie, the Chief Engineer by his order dated 27th May, 
H 
357 
. 
·~: 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
197 4 discharged the respondent from service in accordance with service 
Regulation No. 113 as he had continued to remain absent from duty 
since 30th March, 1974. 
B 
The respondent tiled a writ petition before the High Court chal-
lenging the validity of the order of his discharge from service. A learned 
Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of discharge but 
looking to the attitude of the respondent and continued conduct of 
disobedience of the orders of his superior he was not granted conse-
quential reliefs. The respondent as well as the appellant-Board prefer-
red Letter Patent Appeals. 
' 
C 
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal of the 
J-
appellant-Board and allowed the respondent's appeal upholding the +-
orde .. of discharge as illegal and void and directed the appellants to 
reinstate the respondent, to treat him in service, and to grant him 
benefits of increments, seniority, and promotion. The Division Bench, 
D however, did not grant full back-wages but directed the Board to pay 
the respondent 50 per cent of back-wages. Against the order ·bf the 
Division Bench of the High Court the appellants preferred an appeal to 
this Court by special leave. 
The appeal came up for hearing and advocates for both the Y 
E parties were fully heard. Being satisfied that the Single Judge as well as 
Division Bench of the High Court committed error in allowing the writ 
petition of the respondent, this Court suggested to the counsel for the 
respondent that if he agreed the original writ petition of the respondent 
could be dismissed without directing him to refund the amount which he 
had already been paid by the appellants in pursuance to the orders of 
F the High Court and of this Court. The hearing was adjourned to enable 
!'
counsel to obtain instructions from the respondent. On the next hearing 
another counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue on 
merits. The Court refused to hear fresh arguments as the hearing had 
• 
already been completed. Thereupon, the respondent appeared in 
• 
person to make his submissions which the Court refused as oral hearing 
G has already been completed. However, in the interest of justice the 
respondent was permitted to file written submissions. No written sub-
".Y--
missions were tiled, instead the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.