Judgment:
Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J)
This application has been filed by the applicant questioning office order No.6 of 2008 dated 23.05.2008 issued by the first respondent transferring the applicant from the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad to NAD Visakhapatnam and the consequential office order No. 04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008 whereby the 2nd respondent issued orders to relieve the applicant on her transfer to NAD Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard Mr. K. Phaniraju representing Mr. P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. K. Rajitha for official respondents and Mr. Sudheer representing Mr. G. Vidyasagar for respondent No.4. We have also gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before us. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties.
3. It is the case of the applicant that as per the transfer policy evolved by the Government of India, a Government servant on transfer is entitled to work in a particular station for a minimum period of 4 years. It is clear violation of these guidelines inasmuch as the applicant is disturbed even before she has completed 1 1/2 years of service. The impugned order of transfer is made in arbitrary exercise of power. It is also mentioned by the applicant that there is a clear vacancy in NAD Visakhapatnam. Therefore even if Mr. Mishra (R-4) is to be disturbed on the ground that he has completed his tenure in Allahabad, he could have been posted in Visakhapatnam and that would not have been affected the applicant. There is no justification to affect the applicant to accommodate Mr. Mishra in the vacancy in which in which she has been posted would have been easily be earmarked to Mr. Mishra. Therefore, it shows that the transfer is made with an intention to harass the applicant. The applicant has also explained her personal difficulties inasmuch as her husband is a qualified Doctor and is working with the Government of Maldives. She has two young children who are studying in class 9th and 3rd respectively.
4. Respondents in their counter reply while admitting the fact that the applicant was transferred before she completed the tenure of 4 years in the earlier place of posting have stated that the applicant was transferred on the basis of note received from CLS-II Section dealing with vigilance matters of CLS Officers stating that on the recommendations of the respondent No.3 viz. the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the respondent no.2 viz. the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi requested the Ministry to consider the transfer of the applicant to some non-sensitive post outside CLC(C)'s organiasation.
5. The applicant submitted that the transfer of the applicant is punitive and it is not made in administrative interest and it would clearly show that the transfer is not simplicitor but has been made in the interest of respondents without hearing the applicant.
6. In this context learned counsel for the respondents stated that while effecting the transfer/posting of the CLS officers under the transfer policy/ guidelines of CLS officers, the administrative propriety i.e. complaints, vigilance cases etc. against the officers are taken into account. While effecting the transfer applicant's case was placed before the transfer committee. In this context learned counsel for the respondents has produced transfer policy/guidelines in respect of Central Labour Service (CLS) Officers and submitted that against Administrative propriety it is mentioned that complaints, vigilance cases etc. against the officers are also taken into account while effecting transfers. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter was placed before the transfer committee. However, it is not in dispute that applicant was transferred without giving an opportunity of hearing the complaint lodged against the applicant and that applicant was transferred before she completed the tenure period of four years in the earlier place of posting. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no violation of statutory rules and the same cannot be interfered by the Tribunal.
7. In this context learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AP in the case of P. Anjaneyulu v. Chief Manager, A.P. Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Govt. of India, Hyd and another reported in 2001(3)ALD 313(DB) wherein it has been held that no transfer can be made by way of or in lieu of punishment. In the said case the applicant was said to have been involved in a court case and the disciplinary proceedings against him were ultimately dropped.
8. Applicant in para-4 of her additional rejoinder has stated that as per the internal procedures, the matter was investigated by the Vigilance Section of the 2nd respondent's office and found nothing against her accordingly the issue was closed. On this point learned counsel for the respondents was directed to get instruction whether the same was closed as contended by the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has no such instruction as stated by the applicant. However, it is not the case of the respondents that she was heard before the transfer was ordered on the basis of the note received from CLS-II Section dealing with vigilance matters of CLS officers.
9. Private respondent No. 4 filed MA No. 224/2008 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Tribunal on 28.5.2008. In the said MA it is stated by the 4th respondent that he was relieved on 30.05.2008 whereas the applicant in this OA was relieved on 26.5.2008. Interim order was granted on 28.5.2008 i.e. after the applicant in this OA was relieved. He further submitted that since he had already been relieved but is not being allotted any work the entire official work is suffering. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2006(9) SCC 583 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that " A government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and makes a representation as to what may be his personal problems. Such tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the counter reply filed by the respondents, and that the transfer was made on the basis of notes from vigilance department and that the same was considered by the Transfer committee and that the applicant was not heard before the order of transfer was issued, we are of the view that the applicant may be given an opportunity to be heard. However, since the 4th respondent filed MA stating that he had already been relieved but could not be given work and that applicant has also relieved and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) we are of the view that justice would be met if the applicant joins at the transferred place and make representation and the respondents give her opportunity to be heard on the complaint made against her as mentioned above.
11. Accordingly, we direct the applicant to make representation to the 3rd respondent duly joining the post and the respondents shall give the applicant the opportunity to be heard on the complaint made against her (supra) and consider her request keeping in mind that she has been transferred much before completion of tenure period. The respondents shall pass order within one month from the date of receipt of the representation duly hearing her as mentioned above. Interim order already granted stands vacated. MA No. 224/2008 filed by the respondent No.4 is allowed to the extent indicated above.
12. OA is ordered accordingly with no order as to costs.