Employee Can’t Immunize Himself Against Transfer By Merely Claiming To Be Internal Whistleblower: Delhi High Court
The Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by a CRPF Personnel against the order whereby he was transferred from Group Centre, Noida to 87th Battalion, located in Manipur.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
Underscoring the fact that transfer is an incidence of service, the Delhi High Court has held that by merely levelling allegations against the officials of the department or claiming to be an internal whistleblower, an employee cannot forever immunize himself against transfer.
The Petition before the High Court was filed by a CRPF Personnel against the order whereby he was transferred from Group Centre, Noida to 87th Battalion, located in Manipur. The Petition was filed on the ground that the order of transfer was vitiated by malice and was in the nature of retaliation against the petitioner, who is an internal whistleblower.
The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held, “It cannot be that, by merely leveling allegations against the officials of the department or claiming to be an internal whistleblower, an employee can forever immunize himself against transfer. Of course, if the employee is able to satisfy the Court that there is a link between his whistle-blowing activities and the transfer order, the Court would be justified in interfering. In the present case, there is none.”
Advocate Manish Sangwan represented the Petitioner while Central Government Standing Counsel Rohan Jaitley represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
Referring to the judgment in Somesh Tiwari v Union of India (2009), the Bench asserted that if an order of transfer is by way of retaliation against an employee, the order would be vitiated. However, it would be for the concerned employee in that case to make out a clear case in that regard.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that much less any proof of mala fides in issuing of the impugned transfer order, there was nothing to indicate any link between the alleged whistleblowing activities of the petitioner and the transfer. It was further noticed that the impugned order of transfer specifically stated that the transfer was for administrative reasons.
“Accepting Mr. Sangwan’s submissions, in such circumstances, would amount to holding that, by leveling allegations against the officials of the department or engaging in whistle-blowing activities, whether rightly or wrongly, an employee insulates himself forever from transfer. This, quite obviously, can never be the position in law”, the Bench mentioned.
The Bench further added, “It is well settled that Courts should be chary in interfering in matters of transfer. Interference with transfer orders at the drop of a hat completely dislocates the administrative functions of the department. Especially when we are dealing with paramilitary forces, a much greater latitude is required to be accorded to the authorities concerned to decide on the posting of various persons.”
The Bench was of the view that ordinarily, a court would intervene where the posting is clearly in violation or in breach of administrative rules or statutory instructions. Finding the transfer order to be entirely in accordance with the tenure of the petitioner at Noida and also noticing that no case of mala fides was made out, the Bench refused to issue notice in the writ petition. “The writ petition is dismissed in limine”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Sh Rahul Solanki v. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7703-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Manish Sangwan, Anshul Kumar, Manish Mishra, Tanya Gupta, Petitioner in person
Respondent: Central Government Standing Counsel Rohan Jaitley, Advocates Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Yogya Bhatia Adv, Comdt. Law Saurav, 2-I/C Avinash, AC Law Ajay Pal(CRPF)