PRABIR BANERJEE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 05-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRABIR BANERJEE 
~ 
1 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 
OCTOBER 5, 2007 
B 
[ALT AMAS KABIR AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
':'_\. 
Service Law: 
c 
Central Excise Rules, 2002; r.3(2) 
Circulars dated 16.1.2003, 19. 2. 2004 and 9. 3. 2004 issued by the 
Central Board of Excise and Customs: 
Transfer-Issuance of Transfer order by Cadre Controlling 
D Authority transferring petitioner and others from one zone to another-
Application filed against the transfer order was dismissed by Central 
Administrative Tribunal-Challenge to-Disposed of by High Court 
with leave to petitioners to submit a representation to the competent 
authority-On appeal, held: Petitioner was transferred from one zone 
E to another in terms of the transfer order passed by the competent 
authority under powers vested in him by the Board in terms of Circular 
dated 16.1.2003-Neither of Circulars dated 19.2.04 and 9.3.04, as 
relied on by both the parties, have any bearing to the main issue-
Transfer is' an incident of service in All India Service-Controlling 
>----
authority was competent to transfer the petitioner under the Central 
F Service Rules-Though, the decision as conveyed in terms of the 
Circulars was an administrative decision but in the absence of any 
direct rule pertaining to transfer, the administrative instructions would 
have to be implemented-Petitioner has neither pleaded nor shown 
G 
that the decision of the Board in authorizing Nagpur Commissionerate 
as Cadre Controlling Authority has since been rescinded or altered-
.4, 
In such circumstances, it is not appropriate to interfere with the 
judgment/order of the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 and 227. 
H 
694 
,. 
PRABIRBANERJEEv. UNIONOFINDIA 
695 
Petitioner was working as Superintendent, a Group 'B' post in A 
the Central Excise Department, Bhopal. On 19.2.2004, the 
Department of Revenue, issued a circular discontinuing inter-
Commissionerate transfers of Group B, C and D employees. Even 
with regard to the cases where requisitions were made on extreme 
compassionate grounds such transfers could be allowed on B 
deputation basis for a period of3 years only subject to the approval 
of the Transferor and Transferee Cadre Controlling authorities. 
Subsequently, another Circular dated March 9, 2004 was issued by 
the Department clarifying that inter-Commissionerate transfers 
amongst the Commissionerates having common cadre, where there C 
was no loss of seniority, could be allowed to continue as before. 
Pursuant to the promulgation of the aforesaid circulars the petitioner 
and others were transferred from the Indore Commissionerate to 
the Nagpur Commissionerate. The order was challenged by the 
petitioner and others before the Central Administrative Tribunal on D 
the ground that inter-zonal transfers were not permitted in terms of 
the Circular dated March 9, 2004. The application was dismissed 
by the Tribunal. Aggrieved petitioner filed a writ petition before the 
High Court. The petition was disposed of by High Court holding that 
transfers made in administrative exigencies or in public interest or E 
for smooth functioning of the system did not warrant any interference 
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution oflndia and granted 
leave to the petitioners to submit a representation to the competent 
authority. Hence the present Special Leave Petition filed by one of 
the petitioners. 
F 
Petitioner-employee contended that both the Tribunal as well 
as the High Court failed to appreciate the main plank of challenge 
made on behalf of the employees that inter-zonal transfers have been 
prohibited and since the Nagpur zone was a separate zone from the 
Bhopal zone the transfer order had been made in violation of the G 
policy of transfer; that instead of deciding the main issue raised on 
behalf of the employees, the High Court went into a broader issue 
regarding transfer being an incident of service under the Central 
Service Rules; that the said principle would not apply in this case in 
H 
·~ 
696. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A view of the existence of definite instructions issued by the Board in 
this regard; that the High Court appears to have missed this aspect 
of the matter, had relied solely on several decisions of this Court in 
arriving at the conclusion that the employee would only be entitled 
to make a representation to the competent authority against the 
B orderoftransfer. 
Additional Solicitor

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