|
19.01.2015
(SC)
|
State of HP Vs Tara Devi
|
Transfer of employees on
request from public representative - powers of – Held, on request from public
representatives at all Reason, levels, on administrative exigencies and in
the public interest, transfer shall be considered by the competent authority
and shall be permissible. Clause of 17
of Transfer policy was upheld.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
CWP No. 8590 of 2014 13.12.2014
|
Raj Kumar Vs state of HP
|
Transfer of employee – policy
of transfer – sanctity of - Once the State government has framed a transfer
policy, then it is its duty to implement the same because the very purpose of
framing a policy is to strike a balance between the rights of the employees
and the State in matters relating to transfer so that the same is not
misused.
Transfer of employee –
complaint – right of public to make complaint against employee – employer if
making basis of said complaint for transfer ought to consider the complaint
and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
8. Judicial review of the order
of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant
consideration. Even when the order of transfer which otherwise appears to be
innocuous on its face is passed on extraneous consideration then the court is
competent to go into the matter to find out the real foundation of transfer.
The court is competent to ascertain whether the order of transfer is passed
bonafide or as a measure of punishment.
9. The transfer in the present
case evidently has not been effected in administrative exigencies or in
public interest but has been made on the basis of U.O. Note. It is the specific
case of the respondents themselves that petitioner was transferred on the
basis of complaints received from the public representatives. Therefore, the
question that falls for our consideration is as to whether such transfer can
withstand judicial scrutiny and is permissible in law.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 LIC 316
|
Rattan Lal Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India, 1950
(COI) - Article 16 - Transfer order - Validity of the same - A Junior
Engineer transferred on basis of some note issued from office of Chief
Minister without reference to administrative department – Distance of 4 KMs
between two stations immaterial - No material on record to show what was the
administrative exigency which led to the transfer of the petitioner -
Accordingly, Transfer of employee held not proper. [Para 5]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 LIC 314
|
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of
HP
CWP No. 7634 of 2012
|
Constitution of India, 1950
(COI) - Article 14 and 16 - Transfer of employee – Normal tenure - Order
passed for the same without persisting him to complete his normal tenure and
without considering his retirement date - Said order held illegal arbitrary
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. [Para 3]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
Constitution of India, 1950
(COI) - Article 226 and 227 - transfer for mala fide reasons - Scope of
judicial review in such matters is very narrow - However, when transfer order
is actuated with mala fide intention and same has been issued just to accommodate
a particular person without any plausible reason - Court may intervene. [Para
2]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 (3) SLC 1594
|
Ashok Kumar Attri Vs Himachal
Pradesh Power Corporation
|
Transfer order – abdication of
powers – DO letter - Petitioner was about to superannuate in 2015 and was
transferred on D.O. letter received from office of Chief Minister against
extant transfer policy - Held, Appropriate Authority clearly abdicated its
authority and was swayed away by D.O. letter received from Office of Chief
Minister pursuant to which transfer order passed - Moreover respondent
completely glossed over mandate specified in extant transfer policy - Hence
order not sustainable and set aside - Respondent directed to pass order in
accordance with extant transfer policy. [Paras 4 and 6]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
22.11.2013
|
Amar Chand Vs State of HP
|
Transfer
of employees - clause 17 of transfer policy quashed being illegal and
arbitrary.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 (3) SLC 1373
|
Sanjay Kumar Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India, 1950,
Article 16 - Validity of transfer orders issued on DO letter - Transfer order
passed on basis of instructions of Chief Minister - One employee transferred
at stage when he had only one and half years remaining service which was
against transfer policy - Other 3 employees transferred before completion of
their tenures as Work Inspectors at place `D' - Specific plea taken by said
employees that many Work Inspectors were working at place `D' for more than
15 years, but they were not transferred - Nothing on record as to what were
the compelling reasons for transferring the petitioner before completion of
his tenure - Transfer orders of all the four petitioners held not
sustainable, being arbitrary and vitiated because the same are issued under
dictation - Transfer orders quashed and set. [Paras 37 and 38]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 (3) SLC 1227
|
Chander Shekhar Vs State of HP
|
Transfer orders – political
interference - Held, transfer Order of Petitioner was not a case of exigency
of service or in larger public interest and rather a politically motivated -
Hence order not sustainable and hence quashed. [Para 7]
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 (3) SCC 526
|
Kavi Raj Vs State of J&K
|
Transfer of Employee —
Deputation — Prior consent of employee necessary — Held, in absence of any
statutory rule regarding the same, prior consent of employee before his
deployment against post beyond his parent cadre, held, is not necessary. (Para
24)
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2013 (2) HimLR 648
|
Amir Chand Vs State of HP
|
Transfer of employees – Directions
issued for framing of transfer policy as under:-
[81] In addition to the
directions issued in the individual writ petitions, we are of the considered
view that certain general directions are required to be issued. We have
collated the various directions issued by us in different cases which have
not been complied till today. After taking into consideration the entire
scenario, we issue the following directions:
1. The State must amend its
transfer policy and categorize all the stations in the State under different
categories. At present, there are only two categories, i.e. tribal/hard areas
and other areas. We have increasingly found that people who are sent to the
hard/tribal areas find it very difficult to come back because whenever a
person is posted there, he first manages to get orders staying his transfer
by approaching the political bosses and sometimes even from the Courts. Why
should the poor people of such areas suffer on this count. We are, therefore,
of the view that the Government should categorize all the stations in the
State in at least four or five categories, i.e. A, B, C, D and E also, if the
State so requires. The most easy stations, i.e. urban areas like Shimla,
Dharamshala, Mandi etc. may fall in category A and the lowest category will
be of the most difficult stations in the remote corners of the State such as
Pangi, Dodra Kawar, Kaza etc. At the same time, the home town or area
adjoining to home town of the employee, regardless of its category, otherwise
can be treated as category A or at least in a category higher than its actual
category in which the employee would normally fall. For example, if an employee
belongs to Ghumarwin, which is categorized in category B, then if the
employee is serving in and around Ghumarwin, he will be deemed to be in
Category A.
2. After the stations have been
categorized, a database must be maintained of all the employees in different
departments as to in which category of station(s) a particular employee has
served throughout his career. An effort should be made to ensure that every
employee serves in every category of stations. Supposing the State decides to
have four categories, i.e. A, B, C, D, then an employee should be posted from
category A to any of the other three categories, but should not be again
transferred to category A station. If after category A he is transferred to
category D station, then his next posting must be in category B or C. In case
such a policy is followed, there will be no scope for adjusting the
favourites and all employees will be treated equally and there will be no
heart burning between the employees.
3. We make it clear that in
certain hard cases, keeping in view the problems of a particular employee, an
exception can be made but whenever such exception is made, a reasoned order
must be passed why policy is not being followed.
4. Coming to the issue of
political patronage. On the basis of the judgments cited hereinabove, there
can be no manner of doubt that the elected representative do have a right to
complain about the working of an official, but once such a complaint is made,
then it must be sent to the head of the administrative department, who should
verify the complaint and if the complaint is found to be true, then alone can
the employee be transferred.
5. We are, however, of the view
that the elected representative cannot have a right to claim that a
particular employee should be posted at a particular station. This choice has
to be made by the administrative head, i.e. the Executive and not by the
legislators. Where an employee is to be posted must be decided by the
administration. It is for the officers to shows their independence by
ensuring that they do not order transfers merely on the asking of an MLA or
Minister. They can always send back a proposal showing why the same cannot be
accepted.
6.We, therefore, direct that
whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments, but on the
recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer,
views of the administrative department must be ascertained. Only after
ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be
ordered if approved by the administrative departments.
7. No transfer should be
ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection
either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to
recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular place. In case
they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the
complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the
Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. We,
however, reiterate that no transfer should be made at the behest of party
workers.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2012 LawSuit(HP) 54
|
Pushpa Devi Thakur Vs State of
HP
|
Transfer of employee – vested
rights – normal tenure - It is true that petitioner does not have any vested
right of being accommodated at a particular place and petitioner has
continued to be posted in Shimla for more than 23 years but in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there is also
nothing on record to justify petitioner’s transfer without completion of her
normal tenure at TT&R Shimla. It is not as though petitioner has been
requesting for her adjustment at Shimla. It is not the case of the
respondents that petitioner’s transfer at Sirmaur would serve public
cause/interest in a better, fruitful or more purposeful manner. As such,
impugned orders qua the petitioner are quashed. Petitioner shall be allowed
to complete her normal tenure of posting at TT&R Shimla, unless it is
otherwise not warranted on account of any complaints etc.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2012 LawSuit(HP) 504
|
ALKA CHAKOR Vs State of HP
|
Transfer of employees -
Transfer Policy framing of - The Registrar General is directed to send a copy
of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh
who shall file his affidavit on or before 31st October, 2012 informing us
whether a policy in line of the observations made above, is formulated or
not. If not, he will spell out the reasons for the same
|
|
2011(5) SLR 207
|
Shyam Singh Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India, Articles
16 and 226 - Transfer - Tenure - Petitioner transferred when completed only
one year and ten months service - As per the norm framed by the State, the
petitioner was required to be permitted to discharge his duties as Head
Teacher for three to five years at the present place of posting - It is for
the State to decide where an incumbent should be posted - It is equally
important that, once the norms have been framed, these should be applied
judiciously in a transparent and fair manner - Respondents No. 1 to 3
directed to permit the petitioner to continue till the completion of his
normal tenure. [Paras 6 and 7]
|
|
2011(2) SLC 283
|
Babita Thakur Vs State of HP
|
transfer cannot be used as an
instrument to accommodate/adjust persons without there being any
administrative exigency - Neither there was any public interest nor any
administrative exigency demanding transfer of petitioner - Impugned order set
aside
|
|
2011 (4) SLR 482
|
Babita Kumari Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India, Articles
16 and 226 - Transfer - Petitioner, a JBT Teacher - Already served in hard
area - Again transferred only after 1-1/2 years - Respondent suffering from
Rheumatic Arthiritis with deformities and it was keeping in view her state of
health that she has been adjusted - Directions issued to adjust the
petitioner suitably by keeping in view that she had already served in hard
area and has been shifted despite short stay only to adjust private
respondent No.4, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the
petitioner and private respondent No.4. [Paras 3 and 4]
|
|
2011 (4) SLR 1
|
Kamlesh Chand Katna Vs State of
HP
|
Transfer - Petitioner has aged
parents and other members of the family to be looked after and is due to
retire within 2 years - Person replacing him is posted only after promotion
and giving a suitable accommodation - Petitioner may point out aspects before
the first respondent within a period of ten days, in which case the first
respondent will look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law - In the meanwhile, petitioner may avail the leave of
kind due and would not be compelled to join at the transferred station.
|
|
2011 (3) SLC 379
|
Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs State
of HP
|
Transfer of Government servant
at behest of politician - Interference under Article 226 - Scope - High Court
should not interfere in matters of transfer unless shown to be mala-fide or
violative of any statutory provision or passed by an incompetent authority -
Where it is shown that, transfer made at behest of politicians and
administrative department has not verified facts, then court would interfere
to correct the situation - Public representatives cannot start interfering in
the administration or the working of the Executive - Impugned order of
transfer set aside. [Paras 17, 20 and 22]
|
|
2011 (2) SLR 361
|
Ranjeet Singh Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India, Articles
16 and 226 - Transfer - Petitioner and private respondent No. 4 transferred
vice versa - Petitioner's plea was that he was on verge of retirement - As
per declared policy such person would be given place of his choice or would
not be shifted Contention of respondent No. 4 is that her son is mentally
retarded and is getting education in a special school for such children at a
place of her re-transfer - Petitioner given three places of his choice for
further posting - Respondent No. 2 directed for appropriate action. [Paras 1
to 4]
|
|
2011 (2) LHLJ 1044
|
Subhash Chand Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India 1950-
Article 14 read with Para-7 of the Policy for transfer of teachers in
Education Department (H.P.) - Service Law - Transfer- Quashed - Transfer from
Solan to Lahul and Spiti - Transfer against policy - Misunderstanding between
local MLA and Principal - Reason "exigencies of administration" but
no detail - Relieving- Transfer without approval of competent Authority under
transfer policy - Held: Transfer Policy does not create vested right in
favour of employee but it is not a waste paper- It has been framed for
adherence and not for violation. Transfer quashed.
|
|
2011 (12) SCC 137
|
High Court of Judicature of
Madras Vs R Perachi
|
Transfer is an incidence of
service – judicial review scope is limited
|
|
2011
|
Gopal Krishan Vs State of HP
|
6. Petitioner belongs to a
disciplined force and in normal circumstances he should obey the orders of
his superior officers. However, we cannot be oblivious that in a disciplined
force also, the genuine difficulties faced by the police personnel should be
redressed in a just and fair manner. Normally the scope of judicial review in
transfer matters is very limited, but in the present case taking into
consideration the fact that petitioner’s father is 96 years old and also the
fact that the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present
place of posting, this Court has intervened in the present matter. Moreover,
it is also a couple case.
|
|
2010 (2) LHLJ 970
|
Anuradha Garg Vs State of HP
|
Contract employees are not
entitled for transfer as a right, so as to disturb the regularly appointed
employee - Even when the regularly appointed employee has completed the
normal tenure - Impugned order is set aside.
|
|
2010 (1) SLC 69
|
State of HP Vs LR Bhardwaj
|
Transfer of employees - FR -
Rule 15 - transfer outside of cadre
|
|
2010
|
Joginder Singh Vs Rajiv Sharma
COPC No. 180 of 2010
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian
Joseph, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge d/o 06.09.2010
|
Transfer of employees -
mid-academic session transfer - department should avoid transfer during
middle of academic year - department should also ensure that in event of
teachers being transferred, transferred teacher joins duty only when person
occupying post is relieved.
FOR
FULL JUDGMENT CLICK HERE
Transfer of employees –
Directions issued to department of education to frame transfer policy
exclusively for teachers.
FOR
FULL JUDGMENT CLICK HERE
|
|
2010
|
Om Parkash Thakur Vs Dr. YS
Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni 29.06.2010
CWP 1988 of 2010.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit
Singh, Judge.
|
Transfer of employees - Transfer - Office Bearer of Association
- Petitioner in this case is an employee of Dr YS Parmar University of
Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, impleaded as respondent - Non-teaching
staff of University, stationed at Campus, Nauni has an Employees Welfare
Association, of which petitioner has been President, since June, 2004 -
Petitioner, as President of said Association, had been submitting various
memorandums to respondent, pertaining to demands of employees posted at
Campus and also pointing out irregularities, including financial
irregularities in working of respondent - Respondent University, with a view
to ousting petitioner from Campus, devised a scheme - transfer of the
petitioner has been ordered arbitrarily, in colourable exercise of power.
CLICK
HERE FOR FULL JUDGMENT
|
|
2009 (8) SCC 337
|
Airports Authority of India Vs
Rajeev Ratan Pandey
|
Scope of judicial review is
limited.
|
|
2009 (3) SLC 206
|
Sant Ram Pant Vs State of HP
|
In the present case, there is
no representation of Respondent No. 3 on record. He made no representation to
his own Department. We are clearly of the view that if an employee is
aggrieved by any action taken by the Department, his remedy is to approach
the Department itself. The Conduct Rules clearly lay down that an employee
can only make a representation to his own department that too by following
the proper channel. He cannot directly approach the office of the Hon'ble
Chief Minister or any other authority except his own administrative
department. No employee has the right to approach a political representative
for redressal of his grievances relating to his service conditions. This
would amount to mis-conduct. Even if the decision with regard to the
cancellation of transfer has to be taken at the level of the Hon'ble Chief
Minister, the same should be taken after ascertaining the views of the administrative
department. In Sushila Sharma's case, we had clearly laid down that transfer
orders should not be cancelled without making reference to the administrative
department and giving it an opportunity to put-forth its views. This is
necessary because the administrative department can then put-forth its view
supported with reasons as to whether the order of transfer should be
cancelled or not. Even if such guidelines have not been incorporated in the
Policy we hereby direct that the said procedure should be followed in future.
We may clarify that the public
representatives have a right to complain against the working of any public
servant. Even when a public representative or political functionary makes
some complaint against a public servant and requests that he be transferred
then also the views of the administrative department concerned must be
ascertained. We are also of the considered opinion that though a public
representative can make a complaint against a particular employee, he cannot
suggest the name of any particular employee who should be brought in his
place. This is a matter for the administrative department to decide keeping
in the view the administrative exigencies and public interest.
|
|
2009 (2) SCC 592
|
Somesh Tiwari Vs UOI
|
Transfer – on complaint –
punitive
|
|
2009 (15) SCC 178
|
Rajendra Singh Vs State of UP
|
Transfer of employee — Judicial
review — Scope — Held, courts are always reluctant to interfere with transfer
of an employee
|
|
2009 (11) SCC 678
|
Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of
Gujarat
|
Transfer is an incidence of
service
|
|
2009 (1) CurLJ 637
|
LR Bhardwaj Vs State of HP
|
Constitution of India -
transfer - cancellation - public interest - petitioner must be allowed to
complete tenure of three years
Transfer - outside of cadre
cannot be made without consent of employee
|
|
2009
|
Prem Singh Vs State of HP
09.07.2009
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak
Gupta, J. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.
Civil Writ Petition (T) No.
3321 of 2008
|
Transfer of employees - Service
matter - Transfer - out of circle - Since the respondents have failed to give
any justification whatsoever for transferring the petitioner outside his
circle, the impugned order is arbitrary.
|
|
2008 LIC (NOC) 191 (HP)
|
Sushila Sharma Vs State of HP
27.08.2007
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak
Gupta, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice VK Ahuja, Judge.
CWP No. 1105 of 2006
|
Constitution of India - Art. 16
Transfer of teachers — Made for extraneous reasons and without considering
administrative exigencies and interest of students — Practice deprecated —
Directions given to formulate transfer policy ensuring that transfer are made
only on administrative grounds and to ensure that all employees are treated
fairly and equally and every employee during his tenure of service serves in
tribal /hard areas and also in remote/rural areas.
|
|
2008 (1) LHLJ 420
|
Ajeet Singh Vs State of HP
|
PTA appointee can be replaced
by regular teacher on transfer
|
|
2007 (8) SCC 150
|
Masood Ahmad Vs State of UP
|
Transfer by MLA – did not
vitiate transfer in this case.
|
|
2005 (2) LHLJ 1157
|
Indu Mahajan Vs State of HP
|
Transfer - transfer after short
stay - employer while transferring an employee on request must be knowing the
facts - once the employer has conceded to request of an employee to transfer
to particular place the employer must allow the employee to complete at least
one tenure at place of choice posting.
|
|
2004 (7) SCC 405
|
State of UP Vs Siya Ram
|
Transfer – punitive –
non-working place
|
|
2004 (1) LHLJ 652
|
Shobh Ram Vs State of HP
|
Administrative Tribunal does
not lose jurisdiction to consider the prayer for the grant of interim relief,
on its merits and in accordance with law for staying the operation of the
transfer order even if the petitioner indeed actually might have been
relieved and the transfer order stood already implemented
|
|
2003 (11) SCC 740
|
Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs UP Jal
Nigam
|
Transfer – politician – illegal
|
|
2002 (9) SCC 203
|
Krishan Kumar Vs State of Har
|
Transfer – whether on request –
held not
|
|
1998 (3) SCC 303
|
State of UP Vs Ashok Kumar Saxena
|
Transfer – State can modify
order
|
|
1997 (10) SCC 297
|
State Bank of Saurashtra Vs
Vinod Chandra Shah
|
Transfer – promotion – adjusted
|
|
1997 (8) SCC 372
|
State of Punjab Vs Inder Singh
|
Deputation in CID –
repatriation -
|
|
1995 SCC (L&S) 1243
|
CGM Telecom Vs Jagdish Narain
Kumar
|
Transfer – by incompetent
authority
|
|
1995 (4) SCT 225
|
State of Punjab Vs Joginder Singh Dhatt
|
Constitution of India, Articles
311 and 226
- Transfer - Public servants - It is entirely for employer to decide when,
where and at what point of time a public servant is to transferred - Court
should not interfere - Transfer order passed purely on administrative grounds
- In ordinary course and to prevent transferee from interfering with enquiry
- Order not causing any injustice - Not liable to be set aside in writ
jurisdiction. [Para 3]
|
|
1994 Sup (2) SCC 666
|
Director Of School Education Vs
O. Karuppa
|
Mid-academic term transfer
|
|
1994 Sup (2) SCC 51
|
Damodar Mishra Vs State of Orissa
|
Transfer – survival of cause of
action even when employee is transferred - relieved
|
|
1994 (6) SCC 98
|
NK Singh Vs UOI
|
Transfer – scope of judicial
review. Unless the decision is
vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle
governing the transfers, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are
no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the
courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all
Government departments.
|
|
1994 (2) SCC 416
|
Ramesh Chander Tyagi Vs UOI
|
Transfer order passed by an
authority not competent
|
|
1993 Sup (2) SCC 589
|
Raj Bala Vs Dy Dir Education
|
directed to accommodate
appellant teachers in institution in question as far as possible or in
neighbouring districts if that is not possible
|
|
1993 (4) SLR 349
|
Ramdhar Pandey Vs State Of UP
|
If the public interest is
absent, the order of transfer cannot be supported
|
|
1993 (4) SCC 357
|
UOI Vs SL Abbas
|
Transfer is guidelines and
guidelines issued by Government do not confer upon Government employee
legally enforceable right
|
|
1993 (1) SCC 148
|
Rajinder Roy Vs UOI,
|
It may not be always possible
to establish malice in fact in a straight cut manner. In an appropriate case,
it is possible to draw reasonable inference of malafide action from the
pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances.
|
|
1992 Sup (2) SCC 433
|
Sreemathi Devi Vs UOI
|
Transfer – widow accommodated
|
|
1992 (1) SCC 306
|
Bank Of India Vs
Jagjit Singh
|
Posting of HUSBAND and wife at
same station cannot be claimed as of right
|
|
1991 Sup (2) SCC 659
|
Shilpi Bose Vs State of Bihar
|
Transfer – on request –
challenge by affected employee
|
|
1989 Sup (1) SCC 679
|
JNU Vs KS Jawatkar
|
Transfer – deputation – consent
necessary
|
|
1989 (3) SCC 445
|
UOI Vs HS Kirtania
|
Transfer – malafide to be shown
– court cannot interfere
|
|
1986 (4) SCC 131
|
B Vardha Rao Vs State Of Knt,
|
FREQUENT TRANSFERS
|
|
1986 (2) CurCC 806 (HP)
|
KJ Samuel
|
Retirement two years
|
|
1984 (Sup) SCC 413
|
State Of UP V. Jagdeo Singh
|
Police Act, 1861 - Section 7(d)
- Clause (d) of s. 7 speaks of the punishment of removal from any office of
"special emolument" - Respondent working as a Station House
Officer, is entitled to a special emoluments of Rs. 15 per month while he is
in charge of a police station - But the respondent was transferred as a
Second Officer on the ground of negligence in the discharge of his duties -
Held, provisions of s. 7(d) of the Police Act, 5 of 1861, are therefore
attracted -
|
|
1981 (2) SCC 72
|
Shanti Kumari Vs Regional
Deputy Director
|
Authorities ordering transfer
of employees are bound to act in a reasonable manner and any complaint of
unreasonableness must be considered by the authority superior to that which
orders transfer
|
|
1979 (4) SCC 673
|
KB Shukla Vs UOI
|
Transfer – appointment by
transfer
|
|
1979 (2) SCC 491
|
SR Venktaramana Vs UOI
|
Malafide transfers - order of
transfer should be issued in bonafide exercise of administrative power, in
public interest, in exigencies of administrative and requirements of public
interest - transfer on account of weight of patrons is invalid. It is
however, not necessary to examine the question of malice in law in this case,
for it is trite law that if a discretionary power has been exercised for an
unauthorised purpose, it is generally immaterial whether its repository was
acting in good faith or in bad faith. MALICE - malice in its legal sense
means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act
intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for reasonable or probable
cause. DISCRETION - exercise of discretionary powers for unauthorised purpose
is bad.. MALICE - an administrative order which is based on reasons of fact
which do not exist must be held to be infected with the abuse of power.
|
|
1964 WLR 702/707
|
Merricks
Vs Nett Bower
|
It is well known principle of
our law that any power conferred by statute or regulation of an executive or
administrative authority must be exercised in good faith for the purpose for
which they are granted. They must not be misused or abused by being applied
to an ulterior purpose. Whether that principles applies here or not, I do not
say, all I do say is that if the plaintiff allege, as they do, that this was
a misuse of the power of transfer, that it was used, not for the purpose of
good administration and efficiency but for the motives of punishment they
have an arguable case which they are entitled to have tried by the courts
|
|
1950 1 KB 636
|
Philling Vs Abergele Urban
District Council
|
Where a duty to determine a
question is conferred on an authority which state that reasons for the
decision and the reasons which they state show that they have taken into
account matters which they ought not to have taken into account or that they
have failed to make matters into account which they ought to have taken into
account, the court to which an appeal lies can and ought to adjudicate on the
matter.
|
|
|
|
|
