By this O.A, applicant has challenged order dated 19.07.2007 whereby he has been transferred from SNHO to Delhi North Division (page 10). It is submitted by the applicant that on 21.3.2007 he was transferred from Nauroji Nagar Post Office and posted as Postal Assistant, Sarojini Nagar H.O., New Delhi (page 12). He joined there on 26.3.2007. He was charge sheeted on 14/26.3.2007, which was accepted by him and deposited the money also. In spite of it, he was given punishment whereby his next increment was withheld for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 27.4.2007 (page-15). Even this punishment was accepted by the applicant. Thereafter, at his own request, he was transferred to Hauz Khas Market Post Office vide order dated 07.05.2007 (page-16). He had joined there, but by a subsequent order dated 24.05.2007 (page-19) he was ordered to be posted at Sarojni Nagar HPO at a seat where monetary transactions are not involved. This order was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No.1086/2007, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 25.06.2007 (page 24) by quashing the said transfer order.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that even though Tribunal vide aforesaid order had already observed that there was no reason and justification in transferring the applicant repeatedly, yet one month thereafter, he has again been transferred from Saronji Nagar HO to Delhi North Division. It is against this order, that applicant has filed the present OA. He has challenged the order on the ground that he is being repeatedly transferred without any justification and especially to a different Division where his seniority and promotion both would be affected. He has also submitted that he cannot be transferred in the mid of academic session and in view of the judgment given by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal wherein Rule 37 of P&T Manual had been held to be illegal (page-27) his transfer is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. Respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that applicant while working as Sub Postmaster at Nauroji Nagar Post Office was found involved in misappropriation of Government money. Accordingly, he was charge sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 14/26.3.2007. Simultaneously he was transferred to Sarojini Nagar Head Post Office. Nauroji Nagar Post Office is a single-handed Post office, whereas Sarojini Nagar Post Office is a large Head Post Office with a number of staff. The rationale behind his transfer to Sarojini Nagar Head Post Office was that an official with doubtful integrity who had misappropriated Government/public fund should not be allowed to work where monetary transactions are involved in an independent capacity.
4. The applicant had requested for transferring him to some other place. Accordingly, he was transferred from Sarojini Nagar to SPM Hauz Khas Market Post Office vide order dated 7.5.2007. However, in view of his involvement in monetary transactions, directions were issued by Respondent No.2 to transfer applicant back to Sarojini Nagar Post Office immediately so that he is not involved where monetary transactions are taking place independently. They also explained that applicant belongs to the cadre of Postal Assistant who may also be required to work in Administration Branch, Accounts Branch, Mail Brach etc. where monetary transactions are not involved and even in the earlier judgment there was no bar for his future posting and it was also held that certainly applicant could be posted to a place which is not sensitive in nature.
5. Respondents have also stated that applicant is a habitual offender and has been found violating departmental rules and has been proceeded against departmentally on a number of occasions, the details thereto have been given in Annexure R-1. One Shri Aishvir Singh, Sub Post Master, Sector 12, R.K. Puram, who resides in P&T Colony, Sarojini Nagar, made a complaint dated 4.6.2007, stating that the applicant along with one Shri Moti Lal, SPM, Jawhar Lal Nehru University P.O. visited his residence on 24.5.2007 and used abusive and threatening language outside his residence in P&T Colony Complex. On investigation, the complaint was found to be correct and it was decided by the competent authority to transfer both the officials, viz. S/Shri Radhey Shyam and Moti Lal under Rule 37 of Postal Manual Volume IV to other postal divisions.
6. As far as the question of validity of Rule 37 of Postal Manual is concerned, Respondents have relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr, reported at AISLJ 2004 (2) 446 by way of filing additional affidavit. They have also explained that applicants seniority and promotion would not be affected as he is entitled for two time bound upgradations under TBOP and BCR Schemes after 16 and 26 years of service. Further, promotions to selection based posts, i.e. LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I are made at Circle level on the basis of Circle Level Gradation List and applicant would not lose his seniority at all. They have also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Shri Bhagwan and Anr, 2001 (8) SCC 574 and Full Bench judgment in the case of Shyamsunder Patra & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA Nos.674/95, 672/95 & 673/1995 decided on 4.5.1998.
7. I have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgments relied upon.
8. It is not disputed by the applicant that he was indeed involved in withdrawing an amount of Rs.1,740/- on 12.04.2006 from MIS Account No.375547 standing in the name of one Smt. Gurvinder Lamba by filling the form himself. A specific charge was leveled against the applicant, which was admitted by him. Therefore, he was punished vide order dated 27.04.2007 which was also not disputed or challenged by him because he had admittedly involved himself in the withdrawal of money of someone else. The money was also paid by him. In these circumstances, if respondents decided to post applicant to some other non-sensitive post, neither the action of the Respondents can be said to be illegal nor malafide nor the court can interfere in the day to-day routine matters of the respondents because who is to be posted where, is the matter, which can best be decided by the competent authority. Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that courts should not interfere in the day to-day functioning of departments, otherwise it will become difficult for the administration to run and they will not be able to perform their duties.
9. It is correct that when applicant had approached the Tribunal earlier, his transfer order was quashed, but even in the said order, it was specifically observed that certainly applicant can be posted to a post, which is not sensitive in nature, but it cannot arbitrarily be allowed to take away the functions and duties attached to a post. It is not the case of applicant that by the present posting, functions and duties attached to the post have been taken away. On the contrary, he only relied on the judgment of Allahabad Bench in OA No.250/1994 to contend that Rule 37 of P&T Manual Vol. IV could not have been invoked. However, this aspect has also been looked into by the Full Bench (supra) wherein a specific question was referred to as follows: Which of the two decisions : Whether the Ahmedabad Bench in B.M. Parmar & Ors. v. Union of India (1996 (1) ATJ 2000) or the Division Bench decision in Krishna Chandra Rout v. Union of India & Ors. (OA 629 of 1994) can be said to have laid down the law correctly? There were certain other questions also, but we are concerned here only with the above question, therefore, others are not being referred to. After discussing all the points, the Full Bench returned a finding that the Division Bench decision in Krishna Chandra Rout vs. Union of India & Ors (OA 629/1994) laid down the correct law, meaning thereby that the judgment given by the Ahemadabad Bench had not been approved of by the Full Bench. Therefore, reliance by applicant on the decision given by the Ahamadabad Bench is absolutely misplaced. Even otherwise, validity of Rule 37 of P&T Manual had also been looked into by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr (supra). After referring to different provisions, transfer ordered under Rule 37 by Posts & Telegraphs was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, this question is no longer res integra. It is now settled that transfer under Rule 37 of P&T Manual can be made.
10. As far as applicants contention that by posting him to a new Division, his seniority and promotion would be affected, respondents have explained that two promotions are time bound which he would be entitled to after completion of 16 and 26 years respectively. Therefore, change of Division would not make any difference. Further, promotions to selection based posts, i.e. LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I are made at Circle level on the basis of Circle Level Gradation List and applicant would not lose his seniority at all by the impugned transfer order.
11. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the O.A.
12. At this stage, counsel for applicant requested that if at all respondents want to transfer him to some other Division, let him be transferred to the South Division on any non-sensitive post because that would be closer to his residence; whereas presently he is posted to a very far off place. I do not think any such direction can be given by the Court. However, it will be open to the applicant to make representation. In case applicant gives a self-contained representation, I am sure, respondents would consider it and pass appropriate order thereon within a reasonable period.
13. In view of above, since OA is bereft of any merit, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (J) /PKR/