Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Virendra Ojha, a Director of Income Tax (Investigation) in Mumbai, was transferred to Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh as Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 4 July 2017. He filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking stay of the transfer order. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 26 September 2017 staying the operation of the transfer order. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court to quash the Tribunal's interim order. The petitioner did not allege any mala fides, bias, vindictive, punitive or discriminatory action, nor did he challenge the competency of the authority issuing the transfer order. The only grounds raised were that his daughter was studying in 10th standard and would appear for SSC Board Examination in March 2018, and that his wife was undergoing medical treatment in Mumbai. The High Court noted that the petitioner had been transferred earlier and his daughter had changed schools previously, and that the wife's treatment could be continued at the new place. The Court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules are shown. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's interim order and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to join at the transferred place within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Interim Stay - Transfer Order - Petitioner challenged transfer from Mumbai to Gorakhpur on grounds of daughter's 10th standard examination and wife's medical treatment - Tribunal granted interim stay - High Court held that such grounds are not exceptional and transfer orders should not be interfered with lightly - Held that the Tribunal's order was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal staying the transfer order of the petitioner on the grounds of his daughter's education and wife's medical treatment is sustainable in law
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the interim order dated 26 September 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, and dismissed the Writ Petition. The petitioner was directed to join at the transferred place within two weeks.
Law Points
- Transfer order cannot be stayed solely on grounds of children's education or medical treatment of spouse unless exceptional circumstances exist
- Courts should not interfere with transfer orders in the absence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 252
Writ Petition No.10913 of 2017
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Sandeep Marne, for the Petitioner; Mr. A.M. Sethna, i/by Mr. A.A. Garge, for the Respondent
Union of India, The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging interim order of Central Administrative Tribunal staying transfer order
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the interim order dated 26 September 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai
Filing Reason
Petitioner was transferred from Mumbai to Gorakhpur and his representation for cancellation was rejected; Tribunal granted interim stay which the respondents challenged
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai passed interim order dated 26 September 2017 staying the transfer order in Original Application No.210/00537 of 2017
Issues
Whether the grounds of daughter's education and wife's medical treatment are sufficient to stay a transfer order
Whether the Tribunal's interim order was sustainable in law
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his daughter is studying in 10th standard and will appear for SSC Board Examination in March 2018, and his wife is undergoing medical treatment in Mumbai
Respondents argued that transfer is an incident of service and no mala fides were alleged; petitioner had been transferred earlier and his daughter had changed schools previously
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere with transfer orders in the absence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules. Grounds of children's education and spouse's medical treatment are not exceptional circumstances warranting stay of transfer.
Judgment Excerpts
Transfer is an incident of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be mala fide or in violation of any statutory rules, the Court would not interfere with such orders.
The petitioner has not alleged any mala fides in the 'Transfer Order'. He has also not alleged any bias, any vindictive, punitive or discriminatory action on the part of the Respondents in transferring him.
Procedural History
Petitioner was transferred by order dated 4 July 2017; he filed representation which was rejected; he then filed Original Application No.210/00537 of 2017 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai; Tribunal passed interim order on 26 September 2017 staying the transfer; petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10913 of 2017 before Bombay High Court challenging the interim order; High Court heard and disposed of the matter on 28 September 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
