N.K. SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 25-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N.K. SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.,RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Service law-Transfer from/a sensitive and significant PosrTansfer 
alleged to be prejudicial to public interest-Procedure of-Evidence required. 
C 
Service law-Transfe,-Judicial Review-Scope of-Jud1cial inter-
ference in case of ma/a fides:-When justified. 
D 
Indian Police Service-Tenure Rule 8 read with Rule I-Infraction 
of-Ordinarily a tenure of 5 years in Central Police Organisatio~Total 
period of 5 years:-May be in more than one Central Police Organisation. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Harmonious Construction-Rule 8 read with 
· Rule 1 of Tenure Ru/es:-Ordinary tenure on deputation of 5 years of JPS 
Officer-May not be in one Central Police Organisation but in all-Total 5 
years· tenure. 
E 
Service law-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985--Sections 14 & 
22--Central Administrative Tribunal-Rejection of a/legation of ma/a fides 
without respondents' reply-Improper. 
The appellant, N.K. singh an I.P.S. Officer of 1961 cadre, was serving 
as I.G., CID in Orissa, when he was placed on deputation to the Ministry 
F of Home Affairs for live years from where on 12.02.90 he was appointed 
Joint Director, C.BI. When th'e appellant was in charge of a special 
investigation group conducting !lome sensitive investigation regarding the 
St. Kitts' affairs, he was transferred from the post of Joint Director, C.B.I. 
to an equivalent post of I.G.P. in BSF. Aggrieved by the transfer, the 
G appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
The a1~pellant challenged bis transfer on the grounds of: (1) ma/a 
fides attributed to the then Prim•' Minister, Sh. Cbandrashekhar; (2) being 
In contravention of the Tenure Rules regulating the period of deputation 
in the Centrd Police Organisation; (3) being prejudicial to public interest 
H as made for the ulterior purpose of scuttling the sensititve investigation 
772 
N.K. SINGH v. U.0.1. 
773 
of which the appellant was in charge in the C.B.I. 
The respondents did not dispute the caliber and high reputation of 
the appellant but strongly refuted the allegation of ma/a fides and the 
alleged ulterior motives. They contended that the transfer '"IS due to 
exigencies of administration, "as a necessary incident of the appellant's 
service and that the reasons for the same were not judicially reviewable. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l.l. The element of prejudice lo public interest was only 
involved in transfers from sensitive and important public offices and not 
in all. Mere suspicion of prejudice was not enough. Strong unimpeachable 
evidence was needed to prove definite substanti_al prejudice to public 
interest unless justified on the ground of public interest and exigencies of 
administration. (776-F, G) 
A 
B 
c 
1.2. It needed to be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was D 
by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was 
avoidable. There was no allegation that the successor in the C.B.I. was a 
pliable officer or in any way inferior to the appellant or unsuitable for 
discharging the duties of the sensitive office. Proceeding on the assumption 
that the appellant's successor was also a capable. competent and upright 
officer the appellant's transfer was not prejudicial to public interest. 
E 
(778-B, D, G) 
2.1. A harmonious construction of the provisions of Rule 8 read with 
Rule 1 of the Tenure Rules indicated that the ordinary tenure on deputation 
of five years of IPS officers appointed to the posts of Inspector General of 
Police from their respective cadres in the Central Police Organisations had F 
to be not neccessarily in any one Central Police Organisation but in all, in 
one or more Central Police Organisations to which they were posted. 
(780-CJ 
2.2. CBI and BSF both being Central Police Organisations there had 
been full compliance of the Tenure Rules if the appellant had a total tenure G 
of at least five years in the Central Police Organisations to which be was 
posted during the period of deputation. That need not have been be iu the 
CBI alone. [780-E, F) 
3. There had been no adverse effect of the transfer on the appellant's 
service career. The transfer had been on an equivalent post and two H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
promotions had been given the.reafter. There had been a need for a 
competent IPS Officer in the BSF as a result of the promotion of the senior 
IG

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