Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajinder Paul Bharadwaj, was working as Manager (MM) in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) at Mumbai. He was transferred from Mumbai to Delhi by an order dated 30th January 2007. Aggrieved by this transfer, he filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the order on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, and violation of the ONGC Transfer Policy. The petitioner alleged that the transfer was motivated by personal vendetta of a senior officer and that he had a legitimate expectation of being posted at Mumbai for a minimum tenure of 3 years as per the transfer policy. The respondents, ONGC and its officers, defended the transfer stating that it was made in administrative interest and that the petitioner had no vested right to remain at a particular station. The Court examined the transfer policy and found that it does not confer any legal right on the employee. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to prove mala fides. Relying on settled law that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless the order is mala fide or in violation of statutory rules, the Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the transfer order was valid and in administrative interest.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Transfer - ONGC Transfer Policy - The petitioner challenged his transfer from Mumbai to Delhi alleging mala fides and violation of transfer policy. The Court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless the order is mala fide or in violation of statutory rules. The ONGC Transfer Policy does not confer any vested right on the employee to remain at a particular place. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Mala Fides - Burden of Proof - The petitioner alleged that the transfer was motivated by personal vendetta of a senior officer. The Court held that the burden of proving mala fides is heavy and the petitioner failed to produce any credible evidence to substantiate the allegation. Mere allegations without proof are not sufficient to invalidate a transfer order. (Paras 11-15) C) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Interpretation - The petitioner claimed that the transfer violated the ONGC Transfer Policy which requires minimum tenure of 3 years at a station. The Court held that the policy is only a guideline and does not create a legal right. Moreover, the policy itself provides for exceptions in administrative exigencies. The transfer was found to be in administrative interest. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 30th January 2007 transferring the petitioner from Mumbai to Delhi is arbitrary, mala fide, and in violation of the ONGC Transfer Policy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The transfer order dated 30th January 2007 is upheld.
Law Points
- Transfer order is an incident of service
- Courts should not interfere unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules
- Transfer policy of ONGC does not confer any vested right
- Petitioner cannot insist on posting at a particular place
