R.R. Meena vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Executive Engineer (Civil) in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, the first respondent herein. Through office order dated 17.01.2018, he has been transferred from Bldg-II/CNZ Division to the E&M Division, in public interest/administrative convenience. One Shri P. K. Jain, Executive Engineer, was kept in-charge of Bldg-II/CNZ Division, in addition to his own duties. The said order is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that by virtue of his being Executive Engineer in the particular division, he has become a part of the team for implementation of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court for demolition of unauthorized constructions, and in the process of execution of that work, he received several threats and admonitions from various individuals, including certain legislators of the Delhi Assembly. He contends that when their efforts to hoodwink him from carrying out the demolition of unauthorized structures did not yield results, they prevailed upon the administration to transfer him from the buildings division to an otherwise insignificant division. Extensive reference is made to the threats said to have been received, and quite a large number of photographs and CDs depicting the occurrences at the time of his undertaking the work of demolition of unauthorized structures, are placed on record.

Another contention raised by the applicant is that he has been transferred contrary to the guidelines framed in this behalf, and before completion of the stipulated tenure in the office.

The respondents have filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the applicant was in-charge of an important locality in South Delhi, and though he was under an obligation to ensure that no unauthorized construction came into existence, several buildings have come up without any permission. It is also alleged that due to negligence on the part of the applicant, even the river bed of the Yamuna was not spared by encroachers. The allegation that the transfer was made at the instance of local politicians, is flatly denied. It is also mentioned that the applicant was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments, and the prosecution was also instituted against the applicant by CBI. It is stated that the criminal proceedings were terminated on a technical ground, but the applicant was not exonerated of his wrong doings. The respondents further contend that the transfer was purely administrative in nature, and the guidelines which are prescribed for ordinary transfers, would not apply for such transfers.

Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the impugned order of transfer was passed only with a view to create hurdle for the implementation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi for demolition of unauthorised structures. He contends that anticipating such a move, the applicant got issued a legal notice, and despite that the impugned order of transfer was passed. He submits that the very fact that the applicant was transferred, but no regular posting was made in his place, discloses the lack of bona fides in the matter. He has placed reliance upon several judgments, particularly on the aspect of transfers being ordered before completion of the stipulated tenure under the relevant guidelines, and certain observations made by the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.10006/2017.

Shri Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the present transfer is purely administrative in nature, and that the applicant is trying to paint a picture as though it was resorted to as a measure to slow down the work of demolition of unauthorised structures. He contends that the reports called for by the Chief Engineer as to the functioning of the applicant, reveal several objectionable aspects, and with a view to protect public interest, his transfer was ordered.

The transfer of the applicant, as is evident from the impugned order, was administrative in nature, and is purported to have been done in public interest. It is, in effect, from one place to another within the same municipality, if not in the same office complex. Though extensive arguments have been advanced to impress upon us that the applicant was associated with a team of officers for implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court, nothing concrete in that direction is placed before us, in spite of repeated queries. Even if the applicant was part of a team constituted for the purpose by virtue of his being Executive Engineer of the concerned area, there is nothing on record to point out that the persons associated with such activities were kept outside the purview of transfers. During the course of arguments, it was mentioned that on account of the negligence exhibited by the applicant, several unauthorised constructions have come up, whereas the applicant was selective in his approach, and was, in fact, harassing the school where hundreds of kids were studying.

For any person who joins the service of the Government or its agencies, transfer is a concomitant part thereof. It is only when the transfer results in serious hardship to the employee or is made as a punitive measure, that a scrutiny can be undertaken by the Courts or Tribunals. The guidelines stipulated for effecting transfers apply to the routine transfers. There, again, the courts have permitted latitude to the employers to work out the transfers in such a way that efficiency of the administration does not suffer. No right as such accrues to the employee from the guidelines. Added to that, the administrative transfers and those which are ordered in public interest, are not, by and large, governed by the policy guidelines. Exigency of service and efficiency of administration become paramount considerations.

Assuming that the applicant has been facing serious threats and hardship from various quarters in the process of demolition of unauthorised structures, anybody in his place would have felt relieved, if he is kept out of such delicate and arduous duties. The very fact that the applicant got issued a legal notice even before any transfer was ordered, discloses that there is much more than what meets the eye in his insistence on being posted at a particular place or section.

In the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the purport of the guidelines and the factors to be taken into account while effecting transfers, are dealt with. Even while indicating that the guidelines must be adhered to the extent possible, the directory nature thereof has been asserted time and again.

From the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.10006/2017, that too, on an application filed by the applicant himself, there is nothing to discern that any exception was taken to the transfer. Even while relegating the applicant to the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court made it clear that the order passed by it cannot be construed as expressing any view.

We, therefore, do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.