AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the instant case, the petitioners are assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.3.2015 passed in O.A. No. 702/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore vide Annexure-D. The respondent herein was working as Postal Assistant at Vinobhanagar S.O. at Shimoga and was officiating as DTC instructor at Shimoga and has not completed the tenure of four years. The respondent''s wife is also working at Shimoga in the Department of Posts. Without any justification or valid reasons and without following the guidelines or norms of transfer, he has been transferred from Shimoga to Bhadravathi by an order dated 13.5.2014. Being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 13.5.2014, he has filed the Original Application in O.A. No. 702/2014 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore.
The said matter came for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. In turn after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record and grounds for transfer and following the judgment of Supreme Court held "an employee''s transfer passed without material evidence is malice in law." Therefore transfer order of the respondent to Bhadravathi was quashed and O.A. filed by the respondent was allowed. Being dissatisfied with the order impugned passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners felt necessitated to present this writ petition.
Sri C. Shashikantha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has erred in quashing transfer order on the ground that the respondent is Trade Union office bearer and the Union resorted to strike for three days and the respondent being one of the leading persons was under suspension for two days and the continuance of the respondent at Shimoga was not conducive and therefore decided to transfer the respondent out of Shimoga to maintain office decorum. It is the right that if the respondent''s presence in the place would go against the public interest then he would be proceeded under disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. But that cannot be a ground to transfer a Trade Union activist. Therefore submitted that impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent caveator contended that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore interference by this Court is not called for nor the petitioner has made out any good ground to consider the relief sought in the petition. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we don''t find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal on the original application filed by the respondent. It is significant to note that the stand of the petitioners in their objection filed on oath at internal page 7 and running page 33 is that local service unions had resorted to an illegal strike from 06-11-2013 to 8-11-2013 for 3 days and the respondent was one among the leading persons to abet and instigate the totally illegal strike. The applicant was under suspension from 7.11.2013 to 09.11.2013. Thus continuance of the respondent at Shimoga was not found not conducive and thus it was decided to transfer him out of Shimoga to maintain the office decorum and discipline in the Post Office. But, without completing his tenure, he cannot be transferred and as per the service condition, the matter should be referred to the committee and the committee will take the decision for transfer and further it is stated that the respondent''s wife is also working in the same town and disturbing before expiry of his tenure is not justifiable.
Taking all these aspects into consideration we don''t find any good ground as such to consider the relief sought in the petition.
Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as misconceived.