JUDGMENT
D.H. Nasir, Vice-Chairman
1. The applicant M.A. Rasheed Jameel was initially appointed as Health Inspector Grade III(HI-III) during 1990 in South Central Railway. By order No. P/MD/9/98 dated 23.2.1998 the applicant alongwith two other Health Inspectors was transferred from Secunderabad Station to Nizamabad. The applicant was thereafter transferred from Nizamabad to Bhadrachalam Road (BDCR) in Secunderabad (BG), Division vice S.K. Rahamutullah who was transferred from VSG, UBL, DN to NZB-HYB Division (Annexure-A-38). We would have straightaway disallowed the present OA on the basis of the well settled law that the Court of law or Tribunals should not interfere with transfer orders of the executive officers having regard to the fact that the transfer is an incidence of service, and administrative convenience is the overwhelming factor which need not be looked into and examined by the Court. We are, however, constrained to look into the disputed transfer in view of the fact that malafides are alleged by the applicant against various officers. Violation of the norms governing transfers is also alleged by the applicant.
2. According to the applicant the then CMO gave assurance to the applicant that he
would not be transferred on any ground in future without his willingness and that the present
transfer also would not have been made if he was aware of the fact that the applicant was
preparing for MBA. Further according to the applicant, one Sri Ratnam, TTE, SC on one
occasion when he was standing in the applicant’s officer in a fully drunken state abused the applicant in vulgar language and threatened to get him assaulted and therefore the applicant closed his office and complained to the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, SC about the misbehavior of the said Sri Ratnam. Further according to the applicant he (Ratnam) abused the applicant even when one Mr. B. Nancharaiah, Chief Health Inspector who had come from Secunderabad for an inquiry. The applicant complained of the threats given by Sri Ratnam. The inquiry was conducted by one Sri B.K. Singh, CTI, Secunderabad but he indulged into partiality and favortism to Ratnam. The applicant further alleges that the officers who were conducting the inquiry were pressurising him to withdraw the complaint.
3. It is also alleged by the applicant that he made an application for three days’ casual leave from 30-12-1996 to 1.1.1997 but the same was refused by the Area Officer, SC Railway at BDCR on 29.12.1996 itself stating that “not granted even if leave is due” (Annexure-12 to the OA) and thereafter the 5th respondent stated in his order dated 20.1.1997 (Annexure-A. 13) that the applicant was placed under the administrative control of Area Officer, BDCR vide letter dated 3-12-1996 but the copy thereof was not sent to the applicant. The order according to the applicant, was addressed to the Senior DPO, BG, SC with a direction that “…the TA claims may be entertained only when the same are countersigned by the undersigned”. The applicant further alleges that the 5th Respondent had written to the 11th respondent to stop his wages if the Muster was received without the signature of the Area Officer, BDCR and that his TA bills were already stopped by him (R-5) without any reason and with a view to causing harassment to him. It is further alleged by the learned Counsel Mr. C. Suryanarayana for the applicant that every Health Inspector in the entire Railway used to submit his Muster directly to the 11th Respondent’s office for issuing orders for payment of wages but only in the case of the applicant, a direction was given by the 5th respondent to stop his wages if the Muster was received without the Area Officer’s signature. The applicant represented to DRM, BG, SC Railway, Sec’bad through R-3 pointing out the harassment caused to him by not granting T.A. Claims from November, 1996 onwards inspite of his earlier appeal to the 3rd respondent. But the said Area Manager through his letter dated 4-5-1997 (Annexure A.8 to the OA) on the subject of TA/Conveyance, Passes, PTO, Medical aid etc. informed the applicant that as per the instructions of Sri T.R.K. Reddy, Sr. MS/SC, Sri C. Ravindra Sharma, DMO/DKJ-Sri K. Ponna Swamy, Sr. DPO/SC Div/SC, Sri T.V.R.K. Sharma, APO(E) Sri B. Nancharaiah CHI/SC the applicant would not get any privileges even if he was entitled, if the applicant refused to act according to their instructions. It is further alleged by the applicant that the respondent stated that
“Mind it that everything is in the hands of our people and it will be very easy for us to trap you. All your TA which I was certify held up by Sr. DPO/SC Div./ SC. You will get only when you performs the duties of Safaiwals’s and Safaiwalas performs your duties. Mind it Administration can do anything with you”.
4. At this stage it is necessary to take note of the fact that the impugned order of transfer dated 23.2.1998 is signed by Y. Laxman Rao for Dy. Chief Personnel Officer, SC Railway Secunderabad.
5. The applicant further alleges that on 6-2-1998 a legal notice (Annexure-A-36)was
caused to be issued to R-11 and thereafter DMO, Darnakal Dr. C. Ravindra Sharma stating
that “…instead of withdrawing complaint you have issued a legal notice dated 6.2.98 insulting
CMD. Mind it, CMD will not keep you in A.P.” and soon thereafter R-2 transferred the
applicant from BDCR to Vasco-da-Gama vide letter dated 23.2.1998. Many other allegations
have also been made against various officers of the S.C., Railways by the applicant.
6. Needless to say that alt these allegations are denied by the respondents. Some of the letters produced by the applicant alongwith the O.A. are alleged by the respondents to have been concocted and fabricated. In our opinion, numerous allegations made by the applicant for the purpose of bringing home to the Bench that the transfer was malaifide, would necessitate a separate inquiry or investigation and it would not be expedient on our part either to reject the same and enforce the transfer or to accept the same and quash the transfer order. It prima facie appears from the contents of the OA that the applicant is prone to creating an unhealthy and quarrelsome atmosphere at his place of work and it is this administrative exigency which might have induced the Respondents to issue the impugned transfer order and it would not be imprudent on our part to refrain from interfering with the transfer order. In this view of the matter, therefore, we are not even inclined to examine the legitimacy of the transfer order from the point of view of breaches, if any of the norms for transfer or guidelines for transfer.
7. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent authorities to ensure that the seal of his residence was opened and to return all his belongings including the amount of Rs. 25,000/- allegedly taken by the 10th Respondent on instructions from the higher ups, to the applicant. This question does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Triunal inasmuch as it is in the nature of a criminal offence for which unless the truth of the substance is established in a regular criminal proceeding, no direction could be given to return the alleged amount of Rs. 25,000/- allegedly taken away by the respondents from the applicant’s residence at Bhadrachalam Road. Hence no order can be passed by this Tribunal on that part of the relief claimed by the applicant. The applicant however, is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings before a competent forum if he is so advised for obtaining recovery of the alleged sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
8. In view of what is stated above, we do not consider it necessary to examine the correctness or otherwise of multifarious allegations made against various officers in the department alleging harassment on different occasions and to say anything conclusively whether or not the impugned transfer order has incurred any infirmity, suffice it to say that under the given facts and circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Hence the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
9. The applicant has also prayed for directions to be given to the respondents that his salary from 11.2.1998 onwards and his TA/PTOS and other claims be settled within a specified period. As far as this prayer is concerned, the applicant is directed to make a suitable representation to the concerned authorities so as to enable the authorities to examine the correctness of the same and to issue directions whether any amount of salary from 11.2.1998 onwards has been unlawfully withheld and whether the same is required to be paid to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of the representation as may be made by the applicant for this purpose.
10. In view of the above direction, the MA No. 987/98 stands ordered as far as the relief relating to unpaid salary is concerned.
11. R.A. 2/99 filed by the Respondents in MA 874/98 in OA 1278/98, in view of the disposal of OA 1278/98 does not warrant any further order to be passed and the same is directed to be closed.
12. MA 876/98 stands merged with the final order passed in OA 1278/98.