Jugal Krishna Paul vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the transfer order dated 02.02.2022 was vitiated by malice in law. It found that the transfer was based on a complaint alleging misconduct and insubordination against the petitioner and others, for which no independent action had been taken. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Somesh Tiwary and Mr. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Court concluded that an order of transfer based on unverified allegations and not on factors germane for passing a transfer order amounts to malice in law. The Court rejected the respondents' submission that the petitioner needed to establish actual mala fide, stating that malice in law was sufficient. It also found the submission that the petitioner should have complied with the order before assailing it to be without substance, given the interim order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. The Court found the respondents' argument of exigency of service to be devoid of substance, as the authorities could have proceeded in accordance with law if the petitioner was creating a chaotic situation. The majority view of the Central Administrative Tribunal was held to be unsustainable. The Court set aside the CAT order and quashed the transfer order, directing consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Jugal Krishna Paul, a Superintendent in CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate, was initially transferred on January 31, 2022, and then on February 2, 2022, to Siliguri Commissionerate. He challenged this second transfer order before the Administrative Tribunal, alleging it was punitive, mala fide, and contrary to transfer policy. The Tribunal's Division Bench had differing opinions: the Judicial Member found the transfer unsustainable, while the Administrative Member upheld it. The matter was referred to a third Judicial Member who agreed with the Administrative Member, forming the majority view. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The transfer order was based on a complaint dated February 2, 2022, by the Additional Commissioner, Haldia, alleging threats and insubordination by the petitioner and three other Superintendents regarding a transfer order issued by him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 02.02.2022, transferring the petitioner from Haldia Commissionerate to Siliguri Commissionerate, is punitive in nature and actuated by malice in law, contrary to the principles laid down in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and Somesh Tiwary? The petitioner argued that the transfer order was punitive and based on extraneous considerations, specifically citing a complaint alleging misconduct and insubordination. He contended that such an order, based on unverified allegations, amounts to malice in law, as established by Supreme Court judgments. He also argued that the transfer policy and procedure were not followed. The respondents argued that the transfer was an administrative exigency, necessary for maintaining discipline and efficiency within the department. They contended that the petitioner should have reported for duty at the new posting and then made a representation, as per the Supreme Court's observations in S.C. Saxena. They also argued that the petitioner needed to establish actual mala fide.