TUSHAR D. BHATT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 229 
~--
TUSHAR D. BHATT 
A 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 968 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
t 
Service Law - Dismissal - On the charge that pursuant 
to transfer, delinquent flouting the orders of his superiors, 
remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly and using c 
intemperate language - Held: Dismissal justified - On facts, 
transfer order cannot be termed as ma/a fide. 
Appellant was dismissed from services finding him 
~ 
guilty of the charges of unauthorized absence from duty, 
D 
threatening the head of Department for transferring him 
and flouting his orders, acting beyond official authority 
and using intemperate language etc. His Writ Petition 
challenging dismissal order, was dismissed by Single 
Judge of High Court. Writ Appeal, thereagainst was 
E 
dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
" 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1 Transfer is an incidence of service and 
F 
transfers are made according to administrative 
exigencies. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of 
more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred 
twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as 
ma/a fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the 
G 
~ 
transfer order and to level allegations against his 
superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from 
official duties for more than six months. In the interest of 
229 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A discipline of any institution or organization such an 
approach and attitude of the employees cannot be 
countenanced. [Para 15) [236-D] 
Gujarat Electricity Board and Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal 
8 Poshani AIR 1989 SC 1433 and Mithi/esh Singh v. Union of 
India and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1724, relied on . 
. 
1.2. In the instant case, the matter has been 
thoroughly examined by the Single Judge and the 
Division Bench of the High Court and this Court has also 
C examined the matter in great detail. On consideration of 
the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, 
no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 
[Para 18] [237 -E] 
D 
Case Law Reference : 
AIR 1989 SC 1433 
AIR 2003 SC 1724 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Para 16 
Para 17 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 968 
E of 2009. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.11.2006 of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 
1360/2004. 
Mahender Anand, Mohit Chaudhary, Puja Sharma, Manish 
Jain and Pradeep Chandel for the Appellants. 
R.P. Bhatt, Uttara, Pinky Behera, Hemanitka Wahi and 
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High 
H Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad delivered in Letters Patent 
TUSHAR D. BHATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
231 
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 
".-
Appeal No. 1360 of 2004 on dated 24.11.2006 and final 
A 
judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 in Misc. Civil Application 
for Review No.116/2007. 
3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this 
I 
appeal are recapitulated as under:-
8 
The appellant had joined service of respondent no.1 as 
·'f 
Food Inspector on 1.12.1982. The appellant worked for 14 
" 
years as Food Inspector at Ahmedabad as well as Gandhinagar 
Circle. Thereafter, for the first time in 1996, he was transferred 
to Rajkot. He remained there for three years. 
c 
4. On 30.9.1999, the appellant was transferred to Bhuj. 
However, he did not join duty at Bhuj and after a period of 20 
days, i.e. on 04.10.1999, he sent a fax message of illness of 
•\. 
his mother. Though the appellant was relieved on 05.10.1999 
D 
~ 
from Rajkot, yet he did not join duty at Bhuj and instead he 
entered into correspondence with respondent no.2. The 
.~ 
appellant was given personal hearing in November 1999 by 
respondent no. 2. Even after his advice, he did not join duty at 
Bhuj. 
E 
5. The Assistant Commissioner, Bhuj again on 04.01.2000 
called upon the appellant to immediately join the duty, but the 
appellant not comply with his direction. The appellant on 
17.01.2000 filed a reply to the show cause notice and bluntly 
refused to join duty at Bhuj. Ultimately, by an order dated 
F 
08.03.2000 the appellant was suspended from the service 
pending enquiry. It was only thereafter he made a symbolic 
report on 27.4.2000 at Bhuj with condition in pursuance of the 
order o

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