1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.262/2010
Manoj Kumar Garg
vs
LIC of India & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 11.1.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.
Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for the the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the transfer order
dated 26th Dec, 2009 by which he has been transferred
from Ganganagar office to Nawa City in Kuchaman City.
The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that all it has been done only because of the
malafides which is clear from the voluminous documentary
evidence which is placed on record by the petitioner. The
petitioner was not supplied with certain documents in spite
of the several representations. Even the petitioner lodged a
criminal complaint wherein documents were summoned
and against which order, a revision petition was filed and
that revision petition was also dismissed. The petitioner
then was harassed while giving some absolutely wrong
objections and copy of these communications have been
placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that while
working at particular place, the petitioner has developed a
2
team and there is financial limit within which he has to
maintain the expenses so as to benefit the LIC and because
of the transfer he will have to develop a new team for which
he may have to incur huge expenses and if petitioner will
not be able to maintain the expenses limit then even his
services can be terminated. It is also submitted that
petitioner’s agents have also been threatened so they may
detach from the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on
record copy of one of the complaint submitted by one
Shyam Lal which was submitted to the Central Vigilance
Commissioner alleging certain serious allegations against
the Branch Managers and Assistant Administrative Officer.
In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the order dated 26.12.2009 is passed absolutely
malafiedly and that limit is to the extent that ultimately, the
petitioner’s services may be terminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the
case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors reported in (1997) 6 SCC 169 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court set aside the transfer order and passed the
stricture against the action of the State Government with
direction to the Chief Secretary of the State to take
appropriate action against the person responsible.
3
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon
the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Narpat
Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991
WLR (Vol.1) 136 in support of his contention that the
transfer order can be quashed when a case of malafide is
made out.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It appears
that petitioner had no good relations with his employer and
it ultimately resulted into lodging of criminal cases wherein
certain orders were passed and, thereafter, the revision
petition was filed. From the order passed by the criminal
court on 24th June, 2006 it appears that criminal complaint
was lodged under Sections 409, 420, 425, 467 and 468 IPC.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner after taking
instruction from the petitioner that said complaint is
pending in the court below.
It will be appropriate to consider the judgments relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in the
cases of (i) Arvind Dattatraya Dhande (supra). In the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the facts
of the case observed that ln view of the unimpeachable and
eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will
be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a
4
case of victimisation of a honest officer at the behest of the
aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor
and toddy. Here in this case, the criminal complaints are
pending, which have been lodged by the petitioner as stated
by learned counsel for the petitioner. There are serious
allegations and counter allegations and at this stage, it
cannot be said that the petitioner is being victimized by
issuing this transfer order dated 26.12.2009. Simply
because one employee has raised a complaint against the
employer or has lodged several complaints against the
employer or has initiated criminal cases against the
employer itself cannot be made to become any sealed
against any order of transfer of an employee. It is true that
malafides can be gathered from the facts and the
surrounding circumstances, but in this case, I do not find
that any case of malafide has been made out because the
petitioner may have developed an impression that because
of this reason of his lodging criminal complaints he has been
transferred. So far as the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner that petitioner will have to develop a new
team of his agents to achieve the target by keeping the
limit of expenses is concerned, that is the duty of the
petitioner if so is provided by the guidelines.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
5
vehemently submitted that for Development Officer of the
LIC, Special Rules have been framed under Rule 17 of the
LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain
Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009. In these
Rules, there is no provision providing for transfer of
Development Officer and, therefore, the general rule under
the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing power
of transfer cannot be invoked for transfer of Development
Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in these rules, various provisions have been
made including providing for termination of services of
Development Officer in certain cases as provided under Rule
8 of the Rules of 2009 as well as providing rules providing
table of expense limit.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner after
coming into force of the Rules of 2009, the general Rules of
1960 cannot be invoked.
The Rules of 2009 very specifically provides “revision
of certain terms and conditions of service”. These rules are
not exhaustive rules and these Rules of 2009 are only
making revision of certain terms and condition of service of
Development Officer. In the Rules of 2009 no provision for
transfer by the employer is there and that power is under
the Rules of 1960 then Rules of 2009 are not in conflict of
6
Rules of 1960. Otherwise also, the Rules of 2009 is not in
conflict with the general rules because the Rules of 2009
are framed for the purpose covered under the rules and are
not taking away the powers given in the General Rules once
the subjects which are not covered under Rules of 2009. In
view of the above reasons so far as power of employer to
transfer an employee specifically given in Rules of 1960
shall remain intact.
In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner
is dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA),J.
cpgoyal/-