Shantanu Mandal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2168/2021
INTRODUCTION
In the present case, a government employee aggrieved by the transfer order appeared before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the legality of the transfer. However, the decision to transfer a government employee on the recommendations made on the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) has not been interfered by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the present case, a female colleague filed a Sexual Harassment case against the applicant who was working as a Consultant and Head of Department of ENT at the CGHS wing of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Internal Complaints Committee conducted an enquiry and absolved the applicant from the charges of sexual harassment on 04.02.2021. In its report, ICC suggested that the unit of women doctors should always be separate from Dr. Shantanu Mandal’s unit and in case of any official interaction, it should always be in the presence of a women attendant and also recommended that applicant should not be the reporting officer for the APAR of the women doctor’s colleagues. Based on the recommendations made by the ICC, the respondents issued the order of transfer on 30/07/2021 in administrative and public interest. Furthermore, the order passed by the court in O.A. No. 1704/2021 has also not been in favour of the applicant. Hence the present application has been filed to quash the orders of transfer, relieving from duty and the speaking order.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT
The main argument of the applicant is that the action is punitive and that there was no position available suitable for his expertise in Nagpur. The main argument of respondents is that transfer is in the administrative and public interest.
DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS
The tribunal found justification in the ICC’s recommendations. Citing numerous cases, the tribunal observed that for those joining the service of the Government with transfer liability, the transfer is a concomitant part thereof. It was observed by the tribunal that if the transfer is made in administrative and public interest it cannot be challenged unless it is perverse or illegal. Hence, the applicant has been transferred in administrative and public interest to avoid disturbance in patient care and also to ensure smooth functioning of ENT wing of Safdarjung Hospital.
One of the cases cited was the case of Namrata Verma vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in which the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad observed that it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer his/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement.
CONCLUSION
Citing another case of Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989 AIR 1433) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an incident of service; Tribunal affirmed that did not find any illegality or infirmity in the transfer of the applicant.
Finally, applicant’s contention of not being able to hold a post where his specialization is used is an administrative issue to be decided by the respondents. Tribunal hence found the present O.A. to be devoid of merit and dismissed the same.
Comments