Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an appeal by special leave filed by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal against an order dated 26.8.1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Tribunal comprising Vice-Chairman S.K. Misra and Member (Administrative) U.N. Mallik. The Division Bench had quashed the transfer of respondent No. 3 Dandanirodha Mishra, who was functioning as Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench, and in doing so made strong adverse remarks against the appellant Chairman. The appeal was confined solely to expunging those remarks, as the quashing of transfer was not challenged. The background involved a contempt petition filed by an advocate against the Chief Secretary and the Chairman of the Tribunal alleging non-compliance with directions of the Orissa High Court regarding establishment and functioning of the Cuttack Bench. The High Court by order dated 8.5.1992 discharged the notice against the Chairman and recorded satisfaction with the remedial steps taken by him. Prior to that, the Chairman had written a confidential letter dated 10.4.1992 to the Chief Secretary recommending that respondent No. 3 be replaced as Additional Registrar because of unsatisfactory and obstructive functioning of the Registry at Cuttack, which had caused inconvenience to advocates. Acting on that recommendation, the State Government transferred respondent No. 3 on 11.5.1992 to the post of Additional District Magistrate, Koraput, with the effect that he ceased to function as Additional Registrar. Respondent No. 3 challenged that transfer before the Tribunal. Initially there was no allegation of malice against the Chairman, but later respondent No. 3 sought to implead the Chairman alleging personal malice. The Chairman refuted the allegation and ultimately constituted a Division Bench to hear the matter. The impugned order dated 26.8.1993 quashed the transfer on grounds of alleged malice of the Chairman and contained severe remarks against him, despite the absence of notice to the Chairman and despite the prior High Court exoneration. The Supreme Court examined the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and ought not to be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any norm, referring to N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Others. It found that the transfer of respondent No. 3 was in public interest to ensure proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench, that the High Court had already recorded satisfaction with the Chairman's conduct, and that the Tribunal's finding of malice was contrary to the material on record. The Court observed that the Division Bench's order lacked judicial propriety and sobriety, particularly because remarks were made without notice and after treating the impleadment application as deemed rejected. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse remarks made against the appellant.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Transfer Orders - Transfer is an incident of service - No specific statute relied upon - The Tribunal quashed transfer of an officer on ground of alleged malice of the Chairman, but the High Court in prior contempt proceedings had exonerated the Chairman and recorded satisfaction with his steps; transfer was made in public interest to ensure proper functioning of Cuttack Bench Registry - Held that quashing against material and facts beyond controversy bordered on judicial impropriety; adverse remarks were unjustified. B) Natural Justice - Adverse Remarks Without Notice - Audi Alteram Partem - No specific statute relied upon - The appellant was not given notice or opportunity before adverse remarks were made; the Tribunal treated application for impleadment of Chairman as deemed rejected, yet made findings of malice - Held that remarks made without notice violated fairness and were liable to be expunged. C) Judicial Discipline - Findings of Mala Fides - Need Clear Pleading and Proof - No specific statute relied upon - Original application had no allegation of malice against Chairman; later impleadment application alleging personal malice was treated as deemed rejected, yet Division Bench recorded finding of malice - Held that such approach lacked judicial sobriety and propriety, and comments were unsupported by material on record. D) Contempt of Court - Prior High Court Exoneration - Effect on Subsequent Findings - No specific statute relied upon - High Court in contempt petition discharged notice against Chairman and recorded satisfaction with his remedial steps; this prior exoneration indicated total lack of justification for adverse remarks - Held that Tribunal could not ignore prior finding to brand Chairman with malice.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adverse remarks made against the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 26.8.1993 were legally and factually justified and should be expunged.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; adverse remarks made against appellant in order dated 26.8.1993 expunged as unjustified and lacking judicial propriety. Transfer order quashing was not disturbed.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless arbitrary
- mala fide
- or infraction of professed norm
- adverse remarks cannot be made against a person without notice and opportunity
- judicial propriety and sobriety required
- findings of malice must be based on material on record
- public interest transfer is valid
