SRI ABANI KANT RAY versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 13-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI ABANI KANT A RAY 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 13, 1995 
IJ.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Sc1vice La1<v : Transfer orders 111ade in public interest-Coiat not to 
inte1fere lvith such orders. 
A 
B 
Advc1:re Rc111arks-Nonns of judicial propriety and restraint in exercise C 
of judicial power-Use of intemperate language or making di.1paraging 
ren1arks-lnconsistent with judicial behaviour unless that be the requirenzent 
for deciding the case. 
After some controversy, a Bench of the 01-issa Administrative 
Tribunal was created at Cuttack. Respondent No. 3 who was posted at the D 
relevant time as Additional Secretary to the Revenue Divisional CommisM 
sioner held additional charge of Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench 
of the Tribunal. The appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal not being 
satisfied with the performance of the respondent No. 3 as the Additional 
Registrar wrote a confidential letter dated 10-4-1992 to the Chief Secretary 
recommending that any other officer might be deputed to function as the 
Additional Registrar while stating that the function of the Cuttack Bench 
of the Tribunal was unsatisfactory and could not improve because respon-
dent No. 3 was not interested in doing this work and was only creating 
confusion and problems in spite of being explained everything by him as 
wdl as the Registrar and that the attitude of the respondent was obstruc-
tive and, therefore, urgent action was necessary. 
E 
F 
A contempt petition was tiled by an Advocate against the Chief 
Secretary to Government of Orissa and Chairman of the Tribunal, the 
appellant. The High Court, in its order dated 8.5.1992, stated that some G 
allidavits of the prncticing Advocates had been filed stating that they had 
gone several times to the Additional Secretary for filing new cases, but he 
had refused to accept because of which they were compelled to tile new 
cases at Bhubaneshwar and that almost all the members of the Bar who 
were present on the date of hearing had also made a statement that though 
fifing \\'as \\'illy-nilly accepted since a few days, the case record was trans-
H 
333 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
ferred to Bhubaneshwar for registration and after it was numbered there, 
it could he taken up in the next circuit Bench of the Tribunal to be held at 
Cuttack and so, for urgent matters, a counsel had invariably to go to 
Bhuhanesh\\'ar to obtain interhn order. 
B 
Re,iecting the stand of respondent No. 1, as an eye \\'ash, the High 
Court held that the Chief Secretary had violated the orders of the High 
Court relating to establishment and functioning of a permanent Bench at 
Cuttack which were affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, a further 
opportunity was granted to the Chief Secretary to implement its order. The 
High Court recorded its satisfaction with the action taken by the Chairman 
C 
of the Tribunal to ensure proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench. The 
order dated 11.5.1992 was made by the State Government transferring 
respondents No. 3 to the post of Additional District Magistrate which had 
the effect of his ceasing to function as the Additional Registrar of the 
Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. Respondent No3 challenged his transfer 
D order. A Division Bench of the Tribunal comprising of Vice-chairman and 
Member (Administrative) granted ex-pmte stay of the transfer order 
resulting in the continuance of the respondent No. 3 as the Additional 
Registrar of the Cuttack Branch. The State Government filed an applica-
tion for vacating the interim stay order stating therein the facts and 
circumstances in which the respondent had been transferred to facilitate 
E proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. The respondent 
made an application to implead the appellant as a party in that proceeding 
and made allegation of personal malice against him. The appellant as 
Chairman of the Tribunal made an order constituting a Division Bench of 
the Vice-chairman and Member (Administrative) who made the order 
F 
G 
llllashing the transfer order \\1hile making strong critical conuuents and 
adverse remarks against the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal. This 
appeal by special leave had been filed by tbe appellant to expunge the 
critical comments and adverse remarks against him in the impugned order 
made by the Division Bench. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is settled that a transfer which is an incident of service 
is not to

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