Union of India & Ors v. Sohan Singh Kanawat

SUNITA GUPTA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 AA . ' WP(C)I0502/2015 Piige'.-lorH

$-57. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10502/2015 &C.M.NO.26461/2015 Date of Decision: 29'^ September, 2016 UNION OF INDIA &'ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates. - ' versus SOHAN SINGH KANA.WAT ' Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar & Mr. Surinder Kumar, ^ Advocates. COIIAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J: (QRAU 1. Union of India and Government of NOT of Delhi have filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 29.5.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby OA -4 . No. 1373/2015 has been allowed and the order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure Al) transferring Sohan Singh Kanawat and four others to U Andaman and Nicobar Islands has. been set aside as suffering from legal malice, mala fides, extraneous considerations, illegality and being unjust and arbitrary. ; , ^ 2. The Tribunal had directed that a committee shall be set up to form a new set of guidelines on the issue of transfer and postings of DANIGS/DANIPS officers. The transfer scheme adopted in the case of IAS/IPS officers described as expressively more fair was to be followed till the new set of guidelines were formulated. Instructions \VP(C) 10502/2015 ' PagtflofH Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. were to be issued that none from DANICS/DANIPS cadre should be inducted into IAS/IPS without undergoing the two mandatory spells as provided under the policy dated 10.2.2011. 3. Paragraph 18 of the impugned order records the reasoning and grounds for setting aside the transfer order dated 27.2.2015 and reads:- ^ ; "18. Therefore, for the following many reasons, the issue appears to be clouded: I % ' a) The non-application of mind before issuing the transfer order with particular reference to the ability or the inability of the transferee to join the new place of transfer and the resultant cancellation later, being the three out of five of these orders, is glaring in itself and, therefore, it is crystal clear that the authorities have not applied their mind to the issue at all, if 60% of an order is obviously the result of non application of mind, there is something really wrong. b) The non-posting of KTs. Rashmi Singh and Shri Sushil Singh even for their first posting, in a diffi.cult area, is so glaring and prejudicial cis to destroy the element of fairness in Annexure A! order. This is particularly so in the face of the admission in the reply and the explanation at hearing of the applicant. c) The fact that applicant had served at Car Nicobar, and the fact that, apparently no, one else had been sent before to a difficult station twice, is so glaring but it escaped the application of mind, of the concerned authority. It speaks volumes. d) That, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had. Wf^(C) 10502/2015 already found that the elements of consideration for the concerned authorities had been supplied by one Section Officer whose credibility was under scrutiny at the level of the Bench, and it ought to be under scrutiny at the administrative level also but it is unfortunate that such salient features have even now escaped the minds of the concerned. Therefore, the Annexure A1 order is vitiated as being, arbitrary, unfair and pervaded by non - application of mind. e) The applicant has only three years time to retire and therefore, if going by the guidelines, within a year, may have to be brought back to Delhi. The resultant dislocation in his life and career may not be sufficient enough to M>arrant , the one year posting, especially in the light of the fact that there are many persons, who have not been, touched-by. the sword of transfer at all. This is particularly so, as even people who have been found deficient had been allowed to stay in Delhi, in flagrant violation of all principles ofpropriety. ^ / f) The applicant is