Scope Of Judicial Review Of Transfer Orders: Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, explained the scope of judicial review of Transfer Orders.
The Court observed that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted.
The Court set aside the order of the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court which had reversed the findings of a Single Judge. The Single Judge upheld the government official's transfer, stating that a transfer based on an MLA's UO Note couldn't vitiate it without an allegation of malafide exercise of powers by the government authorities.
The Court remarked that the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside the order of Single Judge had observed that the UO Note of the MLA was approved without application of mind and any remark of administrative exigencies by the department to substantiate that it was in public interest or in exigency of the service.
Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “In absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA.”
Sr. Advocate B. K. Sharma represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Saurabh Mishra appeared for the respondents.
The Court pointed out that the impugned transfer order was not alleged to be violative of any prescribed statutory provision nor was a “plea of malafide against transferring authority has not been agitated even before this Court or the High Court.”
“It is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 200)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate B. K. Sharma; AOR Kaushik Choudhury; Advocates H.K. Das, S.P. Sharma, Saksham Garg, Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Kasif Ahmed
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Saurabh Mishra; AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Abhimanyu Tewari; Advocates Gagan Sanghi, Priyonkoo Ranjan Gogoi and Eliza Bar
