Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeev Bhagwanrao Kokil, a Senior Police Inspector, was initially transferred from M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai to Amravati City by an order published on 25 January 2011, based on a letter dated 24 January 2011 from Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Police). However, Respondent No.2 subsequently issued a letter dated 7 February 2011 stating that the earlier letter contained a clerical error and that the actual approval was for transfer to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai. Consequently, Respondent No.1 (State of Maharashtra) cancelled the earlier order and issued a revised order on 5 April 2011 posting the petitioner to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai. The petitioner challenged these letters and orders before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his Original Application. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The main legal issues were whether the correction of the transfer order due to clerical error violated principles of natural justice and whether the Tribunal erred in its decision. The petitioner argued that he was not heard before the correction and that the transfer was mala fide. The respondents contended that transfer is an incidence of service and that correction of a clerical error does not require a hearing. The High Court analyzed the facts and held that the transfer order was administrative in nature and that no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The court further held that the correction of a clerical error in a transfer order does not require affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected employee, as it is merely a rectification of a mistake. The court also noted that there was no evidence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Tribunal's order and the revised transfer order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Incidence of Service - Transfer is an incidence of service and a condition of service - The court held that no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular place and transfer orders are administrative in nature, not requiring prior hearing (Paras 1-10). B) Administrative Law - Correction of Clerical Error - Natural Justice - Correction of a clerical error in a transfer order does not require affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected employee - The court held that the letter dated 7.2.2011 correcting the earlier erroneous letter dated 24.1.2011 was a valid administrative act and did not violate principles of natural justice (Paras 11-20). C) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review of transfer orders is limited - The court held that transfer orders can be interfered with only if they are mala fide or in violation of statutory rules, which was not established in this case (Paras 21-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned transfer order and its correction due to clerical error violated principles of natural justice and whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the Original Application.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the revised transfer order posting the petitioner to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incidence of service
- no right to be heard before transfer
- correction of clerical error does not require fresh hearing
- administrative orders can be corrected without affording opportunity
