Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when the respondent, a Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat State Electricity Board, was transferred from Surat to Ukai. He was relieved from his duties at Surat on March 30, 1974, but did not report to Ukai, instead filing a civil suit against the transfer order. Despite being warned and given opportunities to comply, he remained absent without leave. The Chief Engineer discharged him from service on May 27, 1974, citing unauthorized absence under Service Regulation No. 113. The respondent challenged this discharge in the High Court, which initially quashed the discharge order but did not grant full relief due to his disobedience. Both parties appealed, and the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its judgment. The Court held that the respondent had no legal right to refuse the transfer and that his absence constituted grounds for disciplinary action. The Court also addressed the presumption of service regarding the warning letters sent to the respondent, concluding that he had been adequately warned before his discharge. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the discharge order and dismissing the respondent's petition, while deciding not to recover the salary already paid to him during the interim period.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Transfer of Government Servants - Legal Right to Transfer - No employee has a legal right to be posted at any particular place; transfer is an incident of service necessary for public interest and efficiency of administration - Civil Services Act, Not mentioned - The court held that transfer is a condition of service and employees must comply with transfer orders unless stayed or modified. (Paras 362H-363A) B) Employment Law - Unauthorized Absence - Disciplinary Action for Non-Compliance - An employee cannot remain absent without leave during the pendency of a representation against a transfer order - Civil Services Act, Not mentioned - The court ruled that unauthorized absence exposes an employee to disciplinary action, as seen in the respondent's case. (Paras 366B-368B) C) Evidence Law - Presumption of Service - Registered Cover and Service - There is a presumption of service when a registered cover is returned with an endorsement of refusal - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(e) - The court noted that the burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party challenging the factum of service, which the respondent failed to do. (Paras 368B-C)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discharge of the respondent from service was valid under the applicable service regulations.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and upheld the discharge of the respondent from service due to unauthorized absence, while deciding not to recover the salary already paid to him.
Law Points
- Transfer of service
- Disciplinary action
- Presumption of service
- Absence without leave
- Compliance with transfer orders
