UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SRI JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 13-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
~ 
v. 
SRI JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
--
~
Service Law: 
Posts and Telegraphs Manual; Rule 37/Fundamental Rules; Rules 14B, 
.;,;., 
c 15and22: 
Transfer of employees on ground of misbehaviour-Transfer order 
affirmed by the Central 1dministrative Tribunal-Challenge !o---Allowing the 
challenge, High Court held the transfer impermissible, violative of Fundamental 
D Rule I 5, amounts to penalty affecting seniority and promotional prospects-
On appeal, held: No employee of Government/Public Sector Undertaking 
appointed on a transfi?rable post has any legal right to be posted at one place/ 
place of his choice-Transfer is not only an incident but a condition of service, 
r 
which is necessary .in public interest and efficiency in public administration 
unless it is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of 
E statutory provisions~To meet administrative exigencieSlquality of public service 
to enforce decency and decorum in public service, the authority/Department 
concerned could exercise its discretion-However, transfer if ordered otherwise 
than for misbehaviour/inefficiency/on written request, the protection of pay is 
\ 
ensured. 
F 
Transfer Order-Interference with-Held: Courts/Tribunals could 
interfere if it casts astigmalconstituie punishment and affect service conditions/ 
prospects-The Cpurt should not use the sameyardsticklnorms/standards to 
all categories of cases. 
G 
Misbehaviour--Enquiry-Necessity of-Held: Not necessary, prima facie 
satisfaction of the authority is sufficient. 
Respondent··employees of the Postal Services Department were 
transferred from Agartala division to Meghalaya division on the ground 
(4 
of alleged misbehaviour with a Director, a lady officer. Aggrieved, 
\ \, 
H 
356 
U.0.1. v. JANARDHAN DEBANATH 
357 
employees approached Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal did A 
not interfere with the transfer order. Employees challenged the decision 
before the High Court. High Court held that the transfer was 
impermissible in terms of Rule 37 and was in violation of Fundamental 
Rule 15. Hence the present appeals by the Union of India. 
It was contended for the appellant-Union of India that there was no B 
violation of Rule 37 of Posts and Telegraphs Manual Rules or Fundamental 
Rule 15; and that the transfer was not a punitive one but for enforcing 
discipline, in public interest, in the exigencies of the administration. 
On behalf of the respondent-!!mployees, it was submitted that before 
effecting transfer, the alleged misbehaviour of the respondents ought. to C 
have been enquired into; that in view of stipulation in the appointment 
order, there was no scope for transferring the employees from one region 
to another. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD. 1.1. Rule 37 of Posts and Telegraphs Manual Rules shows 
that officials of the Department are liable to be transferred to any part of 
India unless it is expressly ordered otherwise for any particular class or 
classes of officials. Transfers were not to be ordered except when advisable 
D 
in the interests of public service. Transfers can be made subject to E 
conditions laid down in FR 15 and 22. (361-E] 
1.2. No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking 
has any legal right to be posted forever at any particular place or place 
of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class 
or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an F 
incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and 
efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown 
to be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of 
statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the 
tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of G 
routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their 
own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders 
passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 
[361-F-H; 362-A] 
National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan and H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A Anr., (20011 8 sec 574, relied on. 
1.3. In a case where transfer is on account of inefficiency or mis-
behavio.ur, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay 
of the post on w

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