AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Challenge in this Appeal is to the Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 10569 of 2010, dated 16.08.2010, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the transfer Order dated 06.08.2010 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trichy Division, Trichy.
We have heard M/s. Srimathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the Appellant was transferred by the proceedings dated 21.12.2009 to Commercial Tax Office, Karur and within eight months by the proceedings, he was transferred to Enforcement Wing, Nagapattinam. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, as per G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994, the transfer order could be effected only after completion of three years. The learned Counsel would further submit that as per Clause 6 of the guidelines attached to the said Government Order, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax Office is to be retained for a period of three years and in violation of Clause 6, the Appellant has been transferred within a period of eight months from the date of his transfer to Karur. Drawing our attention to Clause 21 of the said guidelines, the learned Counsel would further contend that during non-transferable period from 1st July to 31st March of next year, nobody should be transferred and while so, the Appellant has been transferred on 06.08.2010 which is in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would forcibly contend that G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994 would govern the Commercial Taxes Department and the transfer Order has been passed in violation of the said Government Order and the Writ Court did not keep in view the provisions of the said Government Order.
The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the transfer Order was not violative of provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Appellant has worked in Assessment Circle for three years (including Trichy and Karur) and, therefore, transferred to Enforcement Wing, Nagapattinam and the Appellant cannot have any grievance of the same.
In response to the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that previously the Appellant has been working as Superintendent/Assistant and thereafter, his name was included in the panel and then, he was promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and transferred to Karur by the proceedings dated 21.12.2009 and that the Appellant was not on the Assessment Circle for three years.
By perusal of the proceedings in No. Rc.19659/2009/B1, dated 21.12.2009, it is seen that the list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers for the year 2009 was prepared and the Appellant, who was working in Karur as Assistant/Superintendent, who was included in the list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, was transferred and posted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Karur (East). Previously, the Appellant has been working as Assistant/Superintendent and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been working in the Assessment Circle for more than three years.
Be that as it may, next limb of contention of the Appellant is that as per Clause 6 of G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer has to be retained for three years in a place. Clause 6 reads as under:
"No Assistant Commercial Tax Officer will be retained for more than the period noted below in the different spells put together.
(i) Assessment work : 3 (three) years
(ii) Enforcement Wing : 6 (six) years in which 3 years in Checkpost and 3 years in Enforcement Wing
(iii) Others : 3 (three) years."
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Clause 6 mandates that no Assistant Commercial Tax Officer could be transferred before three years. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the above stipulation in G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994 is only a guideline and not a mandatory one. Even assuming that there was any such transgression of the administrative guidelines, that cannot be the reason for interference with the Order of transfer.
Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was transferred during non-transferable period i.e., from 1st July to 31st March, is concerned, it has to be pointed out that by the impugned Order of transfer, not only the Appellant but also 20 other persons were transferred and hence, it cannot be stated that only the Appellant was singled out and transferred during non-transferable period. There is nothing to show that the transfer Order is vitiated by mala fides or in violation of any statutory provisions.
The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, and held that it is well settled that the transfer is prerogative of the authorities and the Court should not normally interfere therewith, except when the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of any statutory provisions or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order.
The order of transfer is neither in transgression of G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 16.06.1994 nor shown to be vitiated by mala fides. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.