Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Veena Harish, was employed as an Accounts Officer at the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., a company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. She alleged that certain officers of the Club were biased against her because her appointment was recommended by a former Chairman, Sri Harindra Shetty. She claimed she was being harassed and humiliated, and that the conditions of her service were being made difficult. The impugned communication dated 31.10.2018 (Annex-G) was a transfer order issued by the Secretary of the Club, transferring her from one department to another. The petitioner challenged this transfer order as malicious and without authority of law. The court examined the Articles of Association of the Club and found that the power to transfer employees vests in the Managing Committee, not the Secretary. Therefore, the transfer order issued by the Secretary was without authority and void ab initio. The court also noted that the transfer appeared to be motivated by malice and bias, as the petitioner had been subjected to harassment due to her association with the former Chairman. The court held that the transfer order was not sustainable and quashed it. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned communication dated 31.10.2018 was set aside. The court did not award costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Competent Authority - Transfer order issued by an officer without authority is void ab initio - The impugned transfer order was issued by the Secretary of the Club, whereas the power to transfer vests in the Managing Committee under the Articles of Association - Held that the transfer order is without authority of law and liable to be quashed (Paras 1-5). B) Service Law - Transfer - Malice - Transfer motivated by bias and harassment is not sustainable - The petitioner alleged harassment due to her association with a former Chairman, and the court found the transfer to be malicious - Held that transfer cannot be used as a tool for victimization (Paras 1-5). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability against Private Company - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition against a private company is maintainable if the company performs public functions or state action is involved - The Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, but the court entertained the petition due to the nature of the grievance - Held that the petition is maintainable (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 31.10.2018 issued by the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. against the petitioner is valid and legal, and whether the writ petition is maintainable against a private company.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 31.10.2018 (Annex-G) is quashed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer order must be issued by competent authority
- Transfer cannot be punitive or malicious
- Writ petition maintainable against private company if state action involved
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
