Supreme Court quashes High Court order staying transfer of government employee: Union of India vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (2020)

Date of the Judgment: February 7, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 123
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a High Court interfere with a routine transfer order of a government employee? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had stayed the transfer of an Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the transfer order, emphasizing that transfer orders are part of the service conditions of government employees and should not be interfered with lightly. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indu Malhotra, J.

Case Background

The respondent, Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit, was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, GST, and Central Excise in Mumbai. On September 5, 2019, he was transferred to Bhubaneshwar by an order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Following the transfer order, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the transfer. The CAT initially granted an interim stay on the transfer on September 17, 2019, but later dismissed the respondent’s application on November 5, 2019. Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court continued the interim stay on November 11, 2019 and on December 2, 2019, admitted the writ petition and continued the interim stay. This led to the Union of India filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging his transfer order. The CAT initially granted an interim stay but later dismissed the application. Subsequently, the respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which continued the interim stay. The High Court’s decision to continue the stay prompted the Union of India to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not found any prima facie case of mala fide or breach of law in the transfer order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with transfer orders unless there is a clear case of mala fide or violation of law.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the scope of judicial review of transfer orders of government employees under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court highlighted that transfer orders are an incidence of service and that the employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted. The Court also emphasized that interference with transfer orders should be minimal and only in cases of mala fide or violation of law. The Court referred to settled principles and precedents, which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellant (Union of India):
  • The transfer order was a routine administrative decision and there was no evidence of mala fide or violation of law.
  • The High Court should not have interfered with the transfer order, especially when no prima facie case was made out.
  • The hardship faced by the respondent due to the transfer was a matter for the employer to consider, not for the court to dictate.
• Respondent (Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit):
  • The respondent’s spouse was undergoing medical treatment in Mumbai, and the transfer would cause hardship.
  • The respondent’s headquarters would remain in Mumbai even if he was suspended.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the transfer order of the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on settled principles and precedents, which have been consistently enunciated and followed by this Court. The judgment does not explicitly mention specific case laws or provisions. However, the Court emphasized the principle that transfer orders are an incidence of service and that the employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted. The Court also reiterated that interference with transfer orders should be minimal and only in cases of mala fide or violation of law.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that transfer orders are an incidence of service and that the employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted. The Court emphasized that judicial interference with transfer orders should be minimal and only in cases of mala fide or violation of law. The Court also highlighted that individual hardships are matters for the employer to consider, and the courts should not dictate where an employee should be posted. The Court expressed its disapproval of the High Court’s interference with the transfer order, stating that it was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power.

The Court considered the High Court’s reasoning that the respondent’s headquarters would remain in Mumbai even if he was suspended, and that his spouse was undergoing medical treatment in Mumbai. However, the Court held that these reasons were not sufficient to justify the High Court’s interference with the transfer order. The Court stated that the High Court could not dictate to the employer where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension, and that individual hardships are matters for the employer to consider.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring. The Court stated, “The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting.” The Court also noted that “The High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law.” The Court further observed, “Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view.”

Key Takeaways

• Transfer orders are an incidence of service and the employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted.
• Judicial interference with transfer orders should be minimal and only in cases of mala fide or violation of law.
• Individual hardships are matters for the employer to consider, and the courts should not dictate where an employee should be posted.
• High Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with routine administrative decisions like transfer orders.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to report at Bhubaneshwar within one week from the date of the judgment. The Court also granted the respondent the liberty to make a representation to the Union of India regarding his transfer, without making any observations on the merits of such a representation.

Development of Law

The judgment reiterates the settled position of law that transfer orders are an incidence of service and that the employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted. The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial interference with transfer orders should be minimal and only in cases of mala fide or violation of law. The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with routine administrative decisions like transfer orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside the interim order of the High Court. The Court emphasized that transfer orders are a part of service conditions and should not be interfered with unless there is a clear case of mala fide or violation of law. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial restraint in matters of administrative decisions and reaffirms the employer’s prerogative in deciding the posting of employees.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Transfer of Government Employees
Child Category: Judicial Review of Transfer Orders
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 226, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can a government employee challenge a transfer order?
A: Yes, a government employee can challenge a transfer order, but the courts will generally not interfere unless there is evidence of mala fide or a violation of law. The employer has the prerogative to decide where an employee should be posted.

Q: What is the scope of judicial review in transfer cases?
A: The scope of judicial review in transfer cases is limited. Courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless there is a clear case of mala fide or violation of law. The courts should not substitute their opinion for that of the employer.

Q: What should an employee do if they face hardship due to a transfer?
A: An employee facing hardship due to a transfer should make a representation to their employer. The employer is expected to consider such representations dispassionately. However, the courts will not generally interfere with the employer’s decision.