ORDER
Judgement Pronounced by D. Raju, J.
1. Having regard to the fact that the main writ petition itself is concerned with the question of transfer and the legality and validity of the
order of transfer made by the writ petitioner Department. We have directed the learned counsel appearing on either side to argue the main writ petition itself and the counsel argued the case, elaborately.
2. The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 3.2.1998 whereunder the Tribunal below chose to interfere with an order of transfer made by the second and third petitioners before us on 26.12.1997 (Fax Message) and 1.1.1998 respectively under which the respondent herein was transferred from Thanjavur to Chennai as Senior Superintendent (Telegraph Traffic) The respondent herein challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it is punitive in nature and tainted with mala fides. The respondent tried to substantiate his ground of challenge by adverting to certain incidents, which occurred at the relevant point of the time in which he had to inter act with the staff members who appears to have called for strike and indefinite fasting in front of the office, which necessitated the respondent to seek police assistance for protection. The Department tried to justify the order of transfer on the ground that it was passed not as a punitive measure but dictated by necessities of administration and consequently, there was no merit in the challenge made to the order of transfer. It is seen from the order passed by the Tribunal, particularly paragraph 8, that the file relating to the transfer was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal not only noticed certain factual details therein but relying upon the observations of the Apex court in the decision reported in Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra and others, has chosen to interfere with the order of transfer on the ground that the order to transfer requires to be set aside, particularly on account of the opinion formed by the Tribunal that there was no evidence at all to hold that the applicant has been indulging in any anti trade union activities.
3. Aggrieved, the above writ petition came to be filed by the Department. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Department strenuously contended that the order of transfer came to be made on account of administrative exigcies and necessities and the Tribunal committed a grave error in interfering with the same. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in T.D. Subramanian v. Union of India and others, That was a case wherein despite the zeal with which the concerned officer worked to eradicate certain malpractices the higher authorities remarked that he was lacking in tact in dealing with his subordinates and on account of such stiff approach and action which led to deterioration of relationship between the trade unions on the one hand and officers, of the Post and Telegraphs Department on the other. The officer concerned was transferred. Their Lordships of the Apex Court after adverting to all such facts held that still the order of transfer could be considered to have been made only in exigencies of service.
4. Per contra while reiterating the charge that the order of transfer was passed in mala fide exercise of power and as a punitive measure, without any administrative necessities, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. K.
Venugopal, relied upon the decision reported in Arvinda Dattatraya Dhande vs State of Maharashtra and others, . That was a case wherein the Excise Inspector concerned whose work as otherwise highly commended for discharging his duties honestly and diligently to bring to book persons indulging in black marketing and contrabanding the liquor, came to be transferred at the instance of the country liquor vendors who were really the target of his commendable action noticed earlier. It is in this context that their Lordships of the Apex Court came to observe that transfer of such an officer cannot be said to be in public interest, but it would be a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the persons who had to face action in his hands for their misdeeds in carrying on their liquor and toddy business.
5. We find hardly any relevance of the principles laid down in the said decision to the case on hands. So far as the present case in concerned, as noticed by the Tribunal itself, on going through the file, the order of transfer appears to have been made keeping in view the tactless action of the respondent which triggered unpleasant relationship between the Unionists and the officers of the Department leading to further friction and lack of cordiality, such reasons could not be said to be when assigned as grounds for transfer, anything other than administrative reasons or reasons of administrative exigencies or necessities. There can be, in our view, no comparison with the
fact situation noticed in the case, decided by the Supreme Court where illegal activities have been curbed by a particular officer but yet at the instance of the very persons who committed such illegal activities, the transfer came to be made. In this case, a Department to properly and effectively function, particularly when it discharges duties involve public and essential services, a proper co-ordination of the manual labour deployed and the officers in the highest rank which is as much essential as anything else for the efficient performance of official duties. When the highest authority of the Department construes certain acts committed by the respondent to be acts of indiscretion and therefore, it was considered necessary to shift him from the said place, it
is not given to the Tribunal be it an Administrative Tribunal to review the administrative exigencies and situation as if it is sitting on appeal over the decision of the competent administrative authority in the Department. Questions of administrative exigencies, unless positive case of mala fides and victimisation is substantiated are to be left to the discretion and decision of the Departmental authorities. In the absence of any positive proof of mala fides or in the absence of any monetary loss or reduction in rank for the respondent officer, in this case there is hardly any scope for interfering with the order of transfer, which in our view, has been brought about for reasons of administrative exigencies and needs. The order of the Tribunal therefore is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.3362 and 5321 of 1988 are dismissed.