UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus S.L. ABBAS

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 27-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"-:;',,.,~- -... 
. "', 
/' / 
' 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v . . , 
S.L.ABBAS 
APRIL 27, 1993 
__ _......_ ~"'--~~ -
.. 
· (JS. VERMA AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,JJ.) 
Civil Services: 
Funda;,,e,;talRu/es 11and15-Transferof a Govemmentservant-When can 
he question~d·in ·a Court/f ribunal-Guidelines issued iJY Government-Whether 
haVe statutory force. 
Constitution of India, 1950/Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: 
Article 323-NSection 14-Jurisdiction. of Central Administrative 
Tribunal-Exercise of-Whether Tribunal can interfere with an order of Trans-
A 
B 
c 
~ 
D 
The rt.ipondent,a Central GoVfrnmentempl_oyee, who was transferred 
Crom one vlace to another, challenged the order or transfer on the grounds 
that: his wife was also employed at the same place in a Centra! GovernrnCnt 
office; his children were also studying there; he himself had suffere~ back· 
hone Cracture i_njuries some time ago; the guidelines contained in Govern· 
men! orindia O.l\I. dated 3.4.1986 had not been kept in mind while ordering 
his transfer; some other officials., who had been serving at the same place for 
a longer p;riOd th.in the resP>ndcnt ~d hCeD allowed to continue and his 
. transfer was due to the misChief of his Controlling Officer. 
In the counter-affidavit med by the appellants, it was submitted that the 
tramf'er was ordered on administrative grounds and was unexceptionable. 
. 
. 
A Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the 
order or transfer on the ground that ~e power or transfer was not an 
unfettered one, but was circumscribed by various circulars/ guidelines 
contained in the administrative instructions issued by the Government and an 
order or transfer could be interdicted if it was discriminatory, that in the 
matter or considering transfer of an individual officer, the Office ~femoran· 
dum dated 3.4.1986, educational dislocation or the children and health 
-* 
ground, if present, deserved special consideration and that in view or the facts 
E 
F 
G 
and circumstances of the case the transfer order in quesion in respect oCthe 
H 
respondent was Ina/a fule. 
. 
427 
I 
. ..--.-·f-1·'.,,.----_-- ':-,, 
. . -· 
. 
' . 
. 
' 
428 
,, i ,.- ' ·' \' '-'.'..SUPREME cOURT REPoRTS 
[1993] 3 S.c.R. 
-_\· ... \ _.,. ' ~<~:~ < ~. 
'.. 
. 
-
. 
\, "Allowing the appeal, preferred by the Union of India and others, this 
Court, 
, 
·; 
-
·---,,......___............,... ___ . 
\\ ·, 
__ - , HELD: 1.1-An order of transfer is an incidence of Government servie. 
Who sho;,ld be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority 
to decide. Unless the order or,i;.,..;.fer is vitiated by ma/afules or is made in 
B 
violation of statuto'ry provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. There is 
no doubt that; while ordering the transfer the authority must keep in mind the 
guidelin~ isSuCd by the Government on the subject. Similarly,_if a person 
makes' any ~~presentation with respect to his t~nsfer, the approprbte 
authority must consider the S3me having regard to the exigencies of ad min· 
C 
istration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, the husband and the wife . 
must be posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does notconf er 
upOn the government employee a legally enforceable right. Executive instruC· 
. ~ions issued by the Government are in the natufe or guidelines. They do not 
have statutory force: [430-C-E) 
' -o 
1.2. The.re is no dispute that the respondent is liabl.: to transfer any-
where in India. I tis not the case or the respondent that the order or his transrer 
·.' was vitiated by maLi fules on the part or the authority making the ol-der, 
thOugh the Tribunal says so, merely because certain guidelines issued by the 
~ Central Government were not followed. The immediate superior of unit, 
E 
against whom misChiefhad been attributed by the respondent, has nothing to 
do with his transfer. [430-F] 
i' 
'._ 2.1. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative _Tribuii31 is akin lo 
the )urisdi~lion or the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitutio~ of 
India inserVice mattCrs;as is evident from Article 323-A of the Constitution. 
F , The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising 
the saidjur~ictton apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-
A. The Administrative Tribunal ·is not an Ap~llate Authorit\· si.tting in 
-judgment 0-;er.the orden of transfer. It cannot substitute its ow~ judgment 
for t~at of the authority com

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