M. Jayanand vs Board of Directors, A.P. Civil Supplies Corpn., Hyd. and others

The only ground pressed for challenging the order of transfer of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 who has passed the order of transfer has no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is Senior Officer Grade-11. The case of the petitioner is that, power to appoint Senior Officer Grade-II vests with the Board in terms of Rule 6 of A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Employees Recruitment and Service Regulations. Since no authority has been prescribed in the Regulations who can transfer different categories of Officers, therefore it should be held that only appointing authority can transfer the petitioner. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that under A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeals Regulations the authority who can punish in case of misconduct is the Managing Director if the misconduct is attributed to a, Senior Officer Grade-11. He submits that since the Managing Director is the disciplinary authority, therefore it should be presumed that the has also the power to transfer as no authority who is empowered to transfer is specifically prescribed either under the Recruitment & Service Regulations or under the Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeals Regulations. The learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the rules in Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Regulations should also be read with Regulation 34 of the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Employees Recruitment and Service Regulations which lays down as under :--

"34. Powers to issue Subsidiary Instructions :--The Managing Director may issue such instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of these regulations, as he may consider necessary to give effect to and carry out the purpose of the provisions of these regulations or otherwise lo secure effective control over employees to whom these regulations apply and may also authorise any of his subordinate to do so, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified by him in this behalf."

From bare reading of this regulation it becomes clear that the Managing Director can issue instructions which are consistent with the provisions of the regulations and which may in his opinion be necessary to give effect to and carry out the purpose of provisions of the regulations. He can also take steps for effective control. Reading of Section 34 alongwith the penalties prescribed under the Conduct Regulations it becomes clear that there cannot be an effective control of an organisation by Managing Director unless he has the power to transfer. Power to transfer is one of the necessary tools for effective management and control of an organisation, for administrative reasons it may become necessary to transfer an employee from one place to another and in case no authority has that power the organisation may not be run smoothly.

The contention of the petitioner is that, even according to the respondents the petitioner has not been punished and transfer is not by way of punishment, therefore they cannot refer to punishments clauses in the Conduct Rules. I agree with him to the extent that the transfer in this case is not by way of penalty, but this argument has only been made to show that in terms of the Staff Regulations and Conduct Rules the Managing Director has the disciplinary power and powers for effective control over the organisation. The appointing authority may or may not have the power to transfer in a given situation. In the present case the Staff Regulations do not prescribe any transferring authority, but since the Managing Director has the power to punish for misconduct and also has the power to take steps for effective control of the organisation, it should follow that the power to transfer is an incidental power to the power of controlling the organisation.

For these reasons, I find that Managing Director has the jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.