Om Pratap Singh vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Sltd.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's apprehension of transfer was not substantiated by any concrete action. The complaint (Annexure-3) was addressed by the authorities, as evidenced by Annexure-4, which clarified that the petitioner, Om Pratap Singh, was a sincere employee with no adverse remarks and no ascertainable political involvement. The Project Officer's communication effectively negated the basis of the complaint by identifying the correct employee and stating the absence of any complaints against him. Since no transfer order had been issued and the internal inquiry had found no grounds for action based on the complaint, the Court found no cause of action to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum if a cause of action arose in the future.

Facts

The petitioner, Om Pratap Singh, a trade union secretary and employee of Samaleswari Open Cast Colliery, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent his transfer. He alleged that a complaint made by the local MLA, Om Prakash Singh (due to political rivalry), to the Union Minister for Coal & Railways on October 6, 2017 (Annexure-3) was intended to pressure him. The petitioner's apprehension stemmed from this complaint, which requested his transfer to another coal company. However, the petitioner pointed out a discrepancy: the complaint incorrectly named him as 'Om Prakash Singh' instead of 'Om Pratap Singh'. An internal communication dated April 17, 2018 (Annexure-4) from the Project Officer, Samleswari OCP, to the APM, IBVA, confirmed that no employee named Om Prakash Singh was on their records, but Om Pratap Singh was a sincere employee with no performance complaints or ascertainable political involvement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the apprehension of the petitioner regarding his transfer, based on a complaint containing an incorrect name, warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the complaint (Annexure-3) was politically motivated and aimed at his transfer. He contended that the authorities had not acted on the complaint solely because of the error in his name. He feared transfer if his correct name were to be used and sought protection from coercive action. He relied on Annexure-4, which confirmed his identity and satisfactory service record, suggesting the complaint lacked merit. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the opposite parties (revenue/state). However, the court's reasoning implies that the opposite parties did not issue any transfer order and that the internal communication (Annexure-4) addressed the complaint by clarifying the petitioner's identity and service record.